lina joy lost

Lina Joy lost.

Malaysia rejects Christian appeal

Ms Joy was disowned by her family and forced to quit her job

Malaysia's highest court has rejected a Muslim convert's six-year battle to be legally recognised as a Christian.

A three-judge panel ruled that only the country's Sharia Court could let Azlina Jailani, now known as Lina Joy, remove the word Islam from her identity card.

Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of worship but says all ethnic Malays are Muslim. Under Sharia law, Muslims are not allowed to convert.

Ms Joy said she should not be bound by that law as she is no longer a Muslim.

Death threats

Malaysia's Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said the panel endorsed legal precedents giving Islamic Sharia courts jurisdiction over cases involving Muslims who want to convert.

About 200 protesters shouted "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is great) outside the court when the ruling was announced.

"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Ahmad Fairuz said.

Ms Joy's case has tested the limits of religious freedom in Malaysia.

She started attending church in 1990 and was baptised in 1998.

In 2000, Ms Joy, 42, went to the High Court after the National Registration Department refused to remove "Islam" from the religion column on her identity card. The court said it was a matter for Sharia courts. Tuesday's ruling marked the end of her final appeal.

Ms Joy has been disowned by her family and forced to quit her job. She went into hiding last year. A Muslim lawyer who supported her case received death threats.

Sharia courts decide on civil cases involving Malaysian Muslims - nearly 60% of the country's 26 million people - while ethnic minorities such as Chinese and Indians are governed by civil courts in the multi-racial country.

Well, this was expected. Again, the sanctity of the Federal Constitution as the ruling law over all Malaysian citizens is violated. It is ironic that the dominant group in Malaysia, the Muslims, are not given the right to choose to enter or exit their own religion. Freedom of religion is a basic human right; yet, even the most powerful group in Malaysia are not accorded that simple right.

Is there a silver lining in this dismal event? Perhaps...possible riots were averted. But, how long can they keep this up? Might the Malay Muslims rise up to demand the right to choose their own religion? Most probably not...probably because many perceive that the cost of a human right is a small price to pay for an uncountable number of advantages--political, cultural, and social. Correct me if I'm wrong...but Prophet Muhammad never forced Muslims to remain Muslims. It was not a legal crime to commit apostasy.

Lina Joy decision on Wed

The Federal Court is finally deciding on the Lina Joy case--on Wednesday.

Wednesday decision on Lina Joy

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has set next Wednesday for the delivery of its decision on the appeal of Lina Joy against the Court of Appeal’s majority ruling two years ago, that the National Registration Department was right in not allowing her application to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card.

Lina’s solicitor Benjamin Dawson confirmed May 30 as the date of decision yesterday.

On July 3 last year, Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judge Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff reserved their judgment to a date to be fixed.

Lina, 42, was born Azlina Jailani to Malay parents. She was brought up as a Muslim but at the age of 26 decided to become a Christian.

In 1999, she changed the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but her religion remained as Islam.

On April 23, 2001, the High Court refused to decide on her application to renounce Islam as her religion on grounds that the Syariah Court should decide the issue.

It also dismissed her application for an order to direct the department to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.

Will the Federal Court uphold Article 11 in the Federal Constitution, and decide in her favor? Probably not, especially with the general elections so near. It's very possible that BN would lose many Malay votes if the Federal Court ruled in her favor. If by some miracle, they did--then this would set a precedent for many other religious conversion cases, and finally stamp the Federal Constitution's authority as THE ruling law of Malaysia.

sex crimes and the vatican

The Roman Catholic church never seems to be free of these sex scandals.

Italian TV urged to scrap BBC film accusing Pope of abuse cover-up

John Hooper in Rome
Monday May 21, 2007
The Guardian

Italy's public broadcasting corporation, RAI, was accused yesterday of withholding approval for the screening of a controversial BBC documentary that accuses Pope Benedict of covering up sex crimes by Roman Catholic priests.

In a pre-emptive strike last Saturday, the newspaper of the Italian bishops launched a furious attack on the film, describing it as "fit only for the dustbin". A front page article in the daily Avvenire said the producers "should bow their heads and ask forgiveness".

The head of the parliamentary committee that oversees RAI, Mario Landolfi of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, said yesterday that he had written to the director-general urging him not to allow screening of the documentary. To do so would be to turn the public network into an "execution squad ready to open fire on the church and the pope", he said.

The row has blown up at a time when the Catholic church in Italy is bringing its weight to bear in public life more than at any time since the demise of the country's Christian Democrat party. Last weekend, lay groups brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on to the streets of Rome to protest at a move by the centre-left government to give legal rights to unmarried couples, including same-sex couples.

Reports in several Italian newspapers said yesterday that the producers of a programme on RAI TV's second channel had agreed a price with the BBC for the purchase of "Sex Crimes and the Vatican", which was screened by Panorama in Britain last October. It caused a storm of controversy and prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, to complain to the BBC's director-general.

The documentary said that in 2001, Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had issued an updated version of an order that was used to silence the victims of sexual abuse. The film was made by Colm O'Gorman, founder of a charity for abuse victims.

The Roman Catholic church accused Mr O'Gorman of misrepresenting the documentary evidence. It said that the Vatican's directive, first issued in 1962, was intended to avoid the misuse of information gathered in confessional. It imposed an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest and any witness.

The BBC documentary said this was meant to protect the priest's reputation during the investigation, but could "offer a blueprint for cover-up".

The document was revised to deal more specifically with sex abuse cases. Both the original and revised versions were kept secret. They came to light in the US in 2003 when their existence was widely reported in the US media.

Panorama's documentary had gone virtually unnoticed in Italy until this month when a subtitled version was put up on a website. It has since found its way to the Italian version of Google video, where it has become far and away the most frequently viewed item.

RAI wanted to give the film a wider audience by screening it on a popular current affairs and discussion programme. The daily La Repubblica said yesterday that the agreed price was within the programme's budget, but "at RAI, no one wants to take the responsibility of signing [the contract]".

Of course, the Church has good reason not to want the screening of that documentary. The ethical question is, should it be screened? It is easy for people to say 'yes' for reasons being that the truth should be unveiled to all. Freedom of speech activists will clamor for the right to view the documentary, and be allowed to decide for themselves if the documentary contains truth. Should the truth be revealed at the cost of the sanctity of a church tradition--the confessional? Showing the documentary would violate the sacredness of the confessional--as the identities of the offending priest, witnesses and victims (possibly) are revealed.

Even if someone were to confess murder, the priest is ethically and spiritually bound not to reveal a single detail of that confession to anyone else. Such a great responsibility is usually only carried by people of great spirituality and integrity. So, if such a person breaks the trust accorded to him by sexually violating a child, should the power of the confessional still be valid for that fallen priest?

I think that it should not. Why should priests hide from legal punishment behind the protective veil of the confessional? Something good should not be used to condone an evil act.

condoms or abstinence?

Apparently, the Health Ministry is not allowed to promote condoms openly, for fear the people will think that they are promoting promiscuity.

Harder to Prevent HIV Spread

KUALA LUMPUR: Preventing the spread of HIV in Malaysia may have hit a snag with the Health Ministry being unable to openly promote the use of condoms.

Health Ministry deputy director of disease control (AIDS/STD) Dr Jalal Halil Khalil said this could lead to prevention programmes being less effective.

“It may slow down the effectiveness of prevention. It is difficult to promote the open usage of condoms,” he said after attending a Malaysian AIDS Council (MAC) International AIDS Memorial Day function.

“The ministry likes to promote it but not openly. We let the NGOs (non-governmental organisations) do the work. It is not to say that we advertise the use of condoms on TV but we use different ways of communicating it or else people will think we are promoting promiscuity.”

As of December 2006, there were 76,000 HIV/AIDS cases in Malaysia with more than 6,000 new cases diagnosed last year.

The main method of HIV transmission in the country is still through the sharing of needles, which accounts for 75% of the cases.

There is, however, an increase of infection through heterosexual relationships where the number of women infected with HIV has increased 10 times from 1.2% in 1990 to 12% in 2005.

Dr Jalal Halil said that while Malaysians were aware of AIDS and how to prevent it from spreading, the knowledge had yet to translate into action.

MAC president Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman said that while the Government wanted to work with NGOs on condom usage, there were still “difficult laws” in which marginalised groups who worked in brothels could be charged under anti-vice laws if they were found with condoms.

She said that when it came to the general public, the question was not only about condoms but that individuals did not realise the high risk of having casual sex.

“When we ask, most people are more conscious about condoms preventing pregnancies rather than HIV.”

Those who oppose condom use are probably the ones who advocate abstinence, claiming that it's 100 % effective. Sure it is, if you can actually stick to your abstinence vow all the way till marriage. How many people can actually do that?A recent study presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) found that over 60% of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage.

Uganda managed to bring down its HIV prevalence in the population from 15 % in 1991 to 5 % by 2001. This was mainly due to its ABC slogan of Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms. Scientists conclude that the biggest impact on reducing HIV rates is from having fewer sexual partners. Other countries like Zambia, Jamaica, Cambodia and Thailand, that promote both abstinence and condom use, have reduced HIV rates.

So, which is better--abstinence or condoms? Of course, abstinence will work all the time. The thing is, can most people actually practice abstinence? Many studies show that people break their abstinence pledges. Of course, perhaps more people can abstain if abstinence-only education is hammered at them consistently from childhood all the way to young adulthood. Yet, how easy is it to practice abstinence in a culture of sex, sex and more sex? Books, songs, movies, newspapers, advertisements all contain sexual images and connotations. How can you hear a voice calling for abstinence in the midst of a million other voices telling you to just go and fuck someone? Only when we change this culture of sex can we plausibly practice abstinence. But, isn't it easier to slip on a condom than to try and change an entire culture?

may 13 book not seized

Now, the Internal Security Ministry is denying that it seized the May 13 book that was recently published.

Ministry checking contents of May 13 book

KUANTAN: The Internal Security Ministry denied that it had seized 10 copies of the book on May 13, clarifying that it had only taken the books to check the contents.

The books would be returned if they contained nothing that violated the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984.

Its Deputy Minister, Datuk Fu Ah Kiow, said news reports stating that the books were seized were incorrect and believed that the matter was being deliberately blown out of proportion to gain publicity.

“It is just a very ordinary procedure, something that the officers will do if they receive reports about any publication that may be unfavourable for the public.

“They will still carry out their duties even if there is no report,” he told reporters after opening the SK Tanah Putih Baru parent-teacher association meeting yesterday.

Fu was asked to comment on the books taken from a bookstore in Mid-Valley Megamall in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday.

Fu said his officers were still reading the contents.

“The book is not a regular publication but a one-off publication. It does not need a permit.

“However, the ministry still has the responsibility of checking the contents of any publication to see to it that it did not go against the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984,” Fu said.

The Printing Press and Publications Act 1984 is a law that requires all print media to renew their permits annually. If deemed "likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, or security"; likely to "alarm public opinion", or likely to be "prejudicial to...national interest", the Home Affairs Ministry has a right to ban that publication outright. And the worst part is, once that happens, you can't appeal against it. "Any decision of the Minister . . . to suspend a license or permit shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court on any ground whatsoever," and "[n]o person shall be given an opportunity to be heard with regard to . . . suspension of the license or permit" according to the act. (Article 13A-13B.)

I do not disagree with banning publications that can cause civil violence or racial riots. But, I think that we have been living in the shadow of May 13 for too long, the ghost of which is repeatedly resurrected by the government to instill fear in us. Do we stop searching for the truth just because we might find skeletons in the closet? Some people might actually agree--those who place more importance on preserving their money and peace, rather than on truth. Will a book necessarily lead to racial riots? No. Did the Holocaust happen because of Hitler's violently anti-Semitic book--the Mein Kampf? No.

When people have dialogue and debates over an issue or event, it is less likely that violence will occur. It is only when people are ignorant and hold misconceptions towards each other that violence is used. Whether we like it or not, there is only a thin veneer of racial harmony in Malaysia. There's a lot of things boiling underneath the surface. One spark is all it takes to ignite it, and the government fears that this May 13 book may be that spark. However, I do not think it will be. Why? If the government encourages dialogue over this book and what really happened in May 13, that might help people to think critically over the causes of May 13, and how to avoid it now. Right now, a lot of us have just a fuzzy idea: May 13 is a terrible incident which should be avoided at all costs. We don't know exactly how it started, what were the underlying factors (besides the trigger) etc.

We can only move forward into the future if we have the guts to first face our past.

not enough for Fong

Now, the MPs have apologized to ALL women. Is that enough for MP Fong Po Kuan? Apparently not.

Apology ain't good enough, says Fong
Yoges Palaniappan
May 18, 07 4:00pm

DAP parliamentarian Fong Po Kuan, who bore the brunt of the sexist
remarks made by her Barisan Nasional counterparts Bung Mokthar Radin and
Mohd Said Yusof, is not satisfied with their public apology.

The two apologised to “all women in the country offended by the remarks”
following a meeting with Women, Family and Community Development
Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil this morning.

However, Fong claimed that Bung Mokthar and Mohd Said were not sincere.

"They’re not sincere, especially after what happened on Wednesday where
they apologised and later retracted their apologies," she said when
contacted.

“They are not remorseful. They are just finding excuses to justify their
behaviour by saying it was necessary to do it to defend the government
during debates in the Parliament," she added.

Fong, who feels that an apology is not sufficient punishment for the
duo, said she will discuss with DAP leaders regarding her next move.

Long-term solution

Meanwhile, Women’s Development Collective (WDC) executive director Maria
Chin Abdullah said the focus should be on a long-term solution.

“An apology is just a small part, I rather not focus so much on it. What
is more important is that whether they are going to do it again, and
what will be done if it occurs again?” she said.

Maria told malaysiakini that the government has an obligation to ensure
that sexism does not occur in Parliament again.

“We don’t want to go through the same exercise of staging protests and
accepting apologies from MPs again and again,” she said, adding that a
stop must be put to this.

“MPs like Bung Mokhtar and Badruddin Amiruldin (BN-Jerai) have a history
of hurling sexist remarks in Parliament. It has been happening since
1995 and it cannot be allowed anymore,” she said.

Maria said any MP who uses derogatory remarks against women should be
suspended and his pay and allowances cut until his suspension is over.

“We also propose that the (errant) MPs be made to do community service
with a women’s organisation for that period,” she added.

I like the last suggestion--making male chauvinist pig MPs do work for women's organizations. What a humbling experience! Then perhaps, they will learn how to behave like gentlemen and treat women courteously.

MPs apologize

The two uncouth MPs (Kinabatangan MP-Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin and Jasin MP-Datuk Mohd Said Yusof) have finally apologized to Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan. About time, too.

May 13 book banned

Ministry seizes controversial May 13 book

May 15, 07 8:56pm Malaysiakini

The Internal Security Ministry confiscated 10 copies a controversial book with new claims on the May 13 racial riots from a major bookstore in the Midvalley shopping centre today.

According to the publishers of ‘May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969', a team of ministry officers visited the MPH bookstore this afternoon.

The officers advised the popular bookstore not to sell the book as it may be banned.

According to a letter issued by the ministry officers to the bookstore, the books were confiscated from the shelves for suspicion of being an “undesirable publication” based on Section 7 of the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984.

The act empowers the minister to ban any publication which is “prejudicial to or likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or which is likely to alarm public opinion”.

The book is penned by academic Dr Kua Kia Soong as a result of a three-month research at the Public Records Office in London to study records and declassified documents on the May 13, 1969 communal riots.

Based on official correspondences and intelligence reports by British officers, Kua argued that the riots were not random acts of communal violence but a coup d’etat attempt by a faction within Umno.

He asserts that the coup attempt against then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman was also backed by the police and army with the intention of forging a new Malay agenda.

Kua said official records show was evidence that portrayal of the event in history books were heavily distorted, which blamed the riots on opposition parties “infiltrated by communist insurgents”.

Senators want book banned

Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.

Following this, Malaysian government embarked on an affirmative action policy, the New Economic Policy, to uplift the economic standards of the Malays, which objectives have been kept in place up to today.

Yesterday in the Dewan Negara, three senators have called for the book to be banned.

In response, Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow today said that the ministry would study the contents of the book and take action soon, according to the evening edition of China Press today.

So, which is the truth? Were the May 13 riots caused by the opposition, or a faction in Umno? Using intelligence reports by the British is reasonable since it's a neutral source. Why ban the book though? Because it will create unrest? More support for the opposition? Disunity among Umno supporters? Banning the book suits the political purpose of the ruling party in Malaysia. So, are they trying to cover up the truth? Or are they trying to bury lies?

Most people will probably think that they're trying to cover up the truth. Yet, just because they ban a book does not necessarily mean that the book contains truth, which the government does not want to reveal. History is often a story told to people to place the storyteller in a positive light. So, the best way to obtain truth is to study the stories told by two people on opposing sides regarding the same event, and if possible, using an outside neutral source.

Of course, we're deprived of that academic privilege to research on the truth. Knowledge is power, indeed. And the government is doing its best to curtail that power from the hands of its people, whom it was created for.

sexist remarks by MPs

Now, they're going to bring up the issue of the sexist remarks made by MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN – Kinabatangan) against MP Fong Po Kuan's (DAP – Batu Gajah) in the next Cabinet meeting: " Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan bocor juga (Where is the leak? Batu Gajah leaks every month too)."

Of course, Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (who made the same insulting remark) refuses to apologize. According to him:

“Who says that it means the menstruation cycle? Bocor can be translated into different things.

“Besides the leaks in the Parliament building, it can also mean to urinate.

“Apologise to Fong Poh Kuan? What is there to apologise for? I did not mean to offend her or other women,” he said when contacted by the daily on Saturday.

He said he was referring to the ceiling leaks in the Parliament building.

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil commented:

“I will bring this up to the Cabinet to see whether it is possible to amend the Standing Orders to include that language used in Parliament must be gender sensitive.

Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) is also leading a protest against the two BN reps tomorrow.

It is a very sad matter indeed to come to a point where formal rules need to be created just to ensure that people talk courteously. Even 1o-year-old kids are taught to speak respectfully, compared those two idiotic adult men. Wonder what their wives and mothers are thinking of them now.

transsexuals

A rather late comment. But I thought it is necessary.

Mak Nyahs: Rehabilitation attempts doomed to failure

I read with alarm the report in which an announcement was made that 'mak nyahs' (transsexuals) in Kuala Terengganu would possibly face forced attendance at a rehabilitation centre aimed at 'educating' them out of their feminine ways.

There is strong evidence that people such as these, whom psychologists would call transgendered or transsexual, are 'hard-wired' (very possibly biologically, from before birth) to develop the feelings and behaviour we see.

In Iran, for example, transgendered people are able to undergo sex reassignment surgery subsidised by the state, and subsequently change their legal gender status and marry. It seems it is not sufficient that Malaysia currently denies 'mak nyahs' all these rights. For now we see this unpleasant proposal to force their rehabilitation.

I don't know the success rate of so-called rehabilitation of transsexuals. Probably very low, I would imagine. And yes, biology does play a big part in the feelings and behaviors of transsexuals. However, I'd like to add that upbringing and the social environment play a very large role, as well. Same old argument of nature vs nurture, as in homosexuality. While homosexuality had been taken out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (due to political reasons), transsexuals are not considered normal as there is still Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM IV.

The DSM, btw, is the bible of clinical psychologists in diagnosing people.

Well, most psychologists are White and male. The DSM isn't perfect--riddled with gender, racial and cultural biases too. Most of the time, in my opinion, the DSM is used to further marginalize people who are different from the powerful majority. What's normal and abnormal? It's not so black and white, if you think about it. To what extent can you be different until you get labeled 'abnormal'?

If a man and a woman display similar symptoms, the woman will more likely get diagnosed as borderline, while the man will get diagnosed as antisocial In fact, right now, they're even considering obesity as a mental disorder. Ridiculous. Seems as if doctors have nothing else better to do than to put everyone into little neat categories to dissect and analyze.

book review: the Book of Lost Things

This book is an excellent book. It's a beautifully-written book about a boy, David, whose mother passes away. His father remarries and has a baby, whom David resents. As a lover of books, stories and tales, David soon takes refuge in his books. One night, he wanders into the sunken garden not far from his house, and finds himself in a strange land. Then, it reads like a fairytale--filled with beasts, knights, wolves; interwoven with classic tales of Snow White and the Little Red Riding Hood, albeit with a twist. In this book, Snow White is a fat, ugly woman who puts on white make-up, who is being taken care of by six communist dwarfs who are on a strike against capitalism. Little Riding Hood is not threatened by a nasty old wolf who eats her grandmother. Instead, in this story, Little Red Riding Hood chases after the wolf who tries fruitlessly to escape her. At last, he faces up to her after her relentless pursuits--and they make love and produce a breed called Loups (half-wolf, half-man). There's also a Huntress who captures animals and breeds them with little children, producing deer with the head of a girl, little boys with the heads of foxes, and things like that. After she releases them into the wild, she hunts them for fun.

These are just some of the things that capture your attention and force you to keep flipping the pages just to see what happens. Connolly has a captivating writing style--almost poetic in nature. Yet, he manages to evoke the story as a simple one being told from the lips of a little boy. For all its simplicity, there are many deeper lessons to be learned from the story.

The narrative is well-paced. The plot is believable. And the language is simply lovely. Reading this book will transport you back to a time when your innocence still remained, and you once feared hidden monsters underneath the bed. Read this book. It's well worth it.

interfaith conference in malaysia banned

And so it appears as if the ruling powers in Malaysia still think that we are like little children, who can't think rationally and decide the truth for ourselves.

Summit on Religious Harmony is Thrown into Discord by Malaysia
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has suffered a serious setback in his attempts to foster Muslim-Christian dialogue after the Malaysian Government banned an interfaith conference...Building Bridges conference, the sixth in a series intended to foster dialogue between the two religions...he was due to be chairing this week. It was cancelled with just two weeks notice.

This year’s seminar in Malaysia was to signal a breakthrough in Muslim-Christian relations in a region where they are particularly delicate.

However, it is understood that some influential Muslims believe that Christianity is “not a heavenly religion” and therefore they frown on interreligious dialogue.

Although the Malaysian Government allowed Dr Williams into the country to preach at the consecration of a new Anglican bishop, it said that it would not permit the interfaith dialogue to take place.

This is compounded with many other religious cases that are happening right now, such as the Marimuthu case, the Subashini case, the ongoing Lina Joy case. There is talk about setting up an Interfaith Commission, but if it is indeed to produce actual relief in the current tumultuous religious and legal atmosphere in Malaysia, changes need to be made in not just the legal structure, but also in the repressive culture here. Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is emphasized time and time again by various NGOs. Yet, there are many who try to shut the voices of those people, closing off the minds of other people.

It is as if they are afraid that we would immediately change the religion we have clung on to for years just by listening to the discourse of another religion. If the religion of these fanatics really is the 'true' religion, why should they be afraid that we would so readily believe the 'lies' of another religion? Neither Islam nor Christianity coerce belief. As long as religious fanatics try to shut up the voices of the believers of other religion in this multicultural society, religion will just be a tool of political power--no longer a personal philosophical system meant to produce good to oneself and everyone else.

religious freedom?

So much for equality in the eyes of the law.

A Distant Dream (Malaysiakini)

The country's laws are of no help in easing the tensions faced by people of different faiths. The imbroglio arising from the case of the late S Rayappan, S Shamala and M Moorthy has only gone to show that racial disparity and biasness has taken firm root in this country once standing tall on its composition of multi-racial.

The most recent case of involved R Subashini, a Hindu who was asked by the Court of Appeal to seek recourse through the Syariah Appeal Court. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Subashini's appeal to stop her Muslim-convert husband Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah from going to the syariah court to dissolve their civil marriage and to convert their young children to Islam.

The message that Syariah law is the supreme law of the nation has left the non-Muslims fuming with anger. So much so that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Bernard Dompok made a statement that it was unreasonable for non-Muslims who married under non-Islamic laws to submit themselves to Syariah Court jurisdiction.

Dompok admitted it was a worrying trend that the civil courts were unwilling to take up disputable cases like that of R Subashini's. The cabinet minister was firm when he said that it was not logical to expect Subashini to seek recourse in the Syariah Court.

Dompok was one of the 10 ministers who submitted a memorandum to the prime minister early last year, asking for a review of laws and the Constitution so they would not infringe on the rights of minorities.

Except for Dompok, the others later withdrew the memorandum. This action in itself tells the public that apart from individuals like Dompok, the rest of the ministers who pulled back could not care less in fighting for the rights of the people. Malaysia Boleh? For the wrong reasons, always!

Karpal said he was perplexed with the Court of Appeal's move to ask the plaintiff S.Subashini, a Hindu, to seek recourse in the syariah court.

Karpal had also called on the Chief Justice to look seriously into the case of Lina Joy who converted from Islam to Christianity and is now seeking to restate her religious status in her identity card.

Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng and 11 other DAP MPs planned to send a letter to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to look into the case of Siti Fatimah, 29, who had been separated from her 15-month-old baby.

Siti was an Indian Muslim who was brought up as a Hindu by her grandmother and had never practised the teachings of Islam. After she married a Hindu man and gave birth to a baby girl, the Malacca Islamic Department ordered Siti to surrender her baby to the department. The baby was with the department while Siti had been sent to the Religious Rehabilitation Centre in Ulu Yam, Selangor by the Syariah Court for 100 days until April 18.

Then there was another case of 81-year-old Tang Siew Ying in Johor, which was highlighted by Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang. Tang died on April 2, 2007 but her family was not allowed to take her body from the Segamat Hospital in Johor as the hospital claimed Tang's identity card showed that she had a Muslim name which was Tang Siew Ying@Azizah Abdullah.

However, it seems that all efforts are in place to slowly but surely alienate non-Muslims from efforts to seek fairness from the civil courts on matters relating to Islam. The remarks by the Terengganu and Perlis muftis that non-Muslims should not be prejudiced against the Syariah Court because it is capable of justice serve as no consolation.

Likewise the insensitive comment made by the Syariah Lawyers Association that non-Muslims must learn to accept syariah law as the civil court had already given its verdict on the Subashini case.

Just as callous was the remark made by Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil that the civil court's decision in the Subashini case must stand. She said it did not matter which court such cases were heard in so long as justice was served.

Hopefully Shahrizat and the two muftis concerned will take the trouble to ponder over the statement made by Women's Aid Organisation.

"Irrespective of the syariah court's capability to dispense justice, the Federal Constitution explicitly stipulates that syariah courts can only exercise jurisdiction over persons who profess Islam and the judiciary must continue to uphold this guarantee," WAO had said.

It added that within Malaysia's constitutional framework, there was no option for non-Muslims to seek legal remedy in the syariah court, even if they wished to do so.

This is indeed worrying. There have been too many cases whereby Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, is ignored for the sake of propagating the power of the majority. Another recent case involves a Hindu woman who was forcibly removed from her husband and has been detained for at least 100 days on the charge of apostasy. The Islamic authorities and the woman's parents claim that she is a Muslim named Siti Fatimah. However, her husband Suresh Veerapan said she is not a practising Muslim, but a Hindu born to Muslim parents and that her name is Revathi Masoosai.

What has happened to the Federal Constitution? It is supposed to be the supreme law of the nation, governing every other rule. Islam may be the official religion in Malaysia, but that does not mean that Malaysia is an Islamic state. It is a secular state. Yet, it appears as if the government is turning more and more Islamic, ignoring the fundamental rights of all Malaysian citizens, as enshrined in the Constitution.

A special inter-religious commission may be set up to investigate such matters. However, unless it is given the power clarify the vague boundaries between the syariah court and the civil court, it will be useless. This is an arduous task which will inevitably raise the ire of religious fundamentalists. Ultimately, it really boils down to one's freedom to choose one's own religion, including Islam. The curtailing of this freedom has resulted in a lot of anger and heartache for everyone involved, as seen in the cases above. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that such freedom will be granted. Men have always used religion to gain power. Why should it stop now?