`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Saturday, October 11, 2014

Nancy Shukri’s conscience on Article 11(4) – Ravinder Singh

Woman under fire... Nancy Shukri's action in submitting a written reply in Parliament, which she claimed was based on information given by the police and the Attorney-General over the Ibrahim Ali bible-burning threat, has been criticised by the opposition as well as NGOs. - The Malaysian Insider pic, October 11, 2014.Woman under fire... Nancy Shukri's action in submitting a written reply in Parliament, which she claimed was based on information given by the police and the Attorney-General over the Ibrahim Ali bible-burning threat, has been criticised by the opposition as well as NGOs. - The Malaysian Insider pic, October 11, 2014.

Nancy Shukri can't be so naïve as not to know that no Malaysian laws permit any individual to defend his religion by encouraging people to burn the holy books of other religions. So for her to defend such a call by the president of Perkasa is outrageous to say the least.  
She confounds the outrageousness by stating that the spirit of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution allows for this.
Are we supposed to believe her just because she speaks with ministerial authority? Are we being told that ministers are infallible and must not be questioned?   
"State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam".
How does this legalise anyone encouraging others to burn the holy books of any religion?
Clause (5) states:
"This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality".
Contrary to what Nancy asserts, these Clauses of Article 11 prohibit the acts of bigots who are going about creating discord among the peoples of different beliefs who have lived peacefully for ages.
Article 11(4) only provides for the making of laws to prohibit the propagation of any other religion to those professing the religion of Islam. So if anyone breaches these laws, action must be taken as provided by the law.
Nowhere do these laws say that anyone could take things into his hands and call upon people to burn the holy books of the offending religion. 
Nancy should highlight clauses, if any, in the laws made under Article 11(4) that unequivocally permit any Tom, Dick and Harry to champion his religion by calling on people to burn the holy books of other religions or do any other acts against persons or properties of those of other faiths.
She is giving face to Perkasa like parents giving face to a child throwing tantrums and misbehaving.
This teaches and emboldens the child to throw more tantrums and continue misbehaving in future and get what he wants, without any punishment. A time comes when the parents cannot control such a child who may even turn on them when he is physically big enough to do so.
I have a question for Nancy. The holy books of the other religions may not even be seen by the likes of Ibrahim Ali, let alone be read.
If the mere existence of certain words in them can be construed as evidence of propagating these religions to those it is prohibited to do so by law, what could be said of the houses of worship that are visible 24 hours of the day?
Could it be, or would it be, said that allowing sight of these houses of worship tantamounts to propagating those religions to Muslims who might look at them? 
The message that Nancy is sending to Perkasa and its ilk is that all efforts will be made to ensure they do not face the consequences of the law for "defending their religion" even if their actions create ill-will among the people of various beliefs.
Hence, the ingenious interpretation of Article 11(4) to defend them, even though their actions breach laws meant to protect peace and harmony.
Nancy is merely repeating what the Attorney-General is said to have decided.
Such was the philosophy of governance strongly enforced by Dr Mahathir - i.e. if the government has made a decision (regardless whether it is right or wrong) all in the government must defend that decision and not bring disrepute to the government by overturning it.
The government must always be shown as being right in everything it does.
Datuk Musa Hitam, the then Deputy PM under Dr Mahathir, had overturned Dr Mahathir's decision about the Asian Rare Earth's radioactive dump trenches in Papan and had to resign after he was lambasted by Dr Mahathir for doing so and "bringing disrepute to the government".
Musa had a conscience. He heard the voice of the people, visited the just constructed trenches and condemned them as unfit for the purpose as they did not meet even 5% of the construction specifications of such trenches.
Yet Dr. M had been repeatedly defending them as fully complying with specifications.

Is Nancy defending Perkasa with a clear conscience, i.e. with herself honestly believing the truth of what she is saying about the spirit of Article 11(4) being a licence for Ibrahim Ali and his ilk to defend religion by uttering words that wound the religious feelings of others?
If she doesn't believe the truth of what she is saying, it would be honourable to resign, as Musa did.
* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.