On June 4th 2008 the Centre for Public Policy Studies organized a dynamic inter-religious roundtable dialogue to facilitate discussion of issues confronting different religions in Malaysia and elsewhere. The forum was convened to host 30 students from National University of Singapore and University of Malaya as part of their Inter-religious Study Tour (in Malaysia and Turkey), in particular to discuss issues and challenges faced in Malaysia with regards to religion and interfaith interactions. The roundtable brought together a number of religious leaders, as well as students interested in inter-religious issues.

The delegation of students was headed by Associate Professor Dr. Syed Farid Alatas from the Department of Malay Studies, National University of Singapore and other notable participants included: Goh Keat Peng (Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism), Tricia Yeoh (Centre for Public Policy Studies), John Gurusamy (Malaysian Interfaith Network), Sanggat Singh (Board member MIN), K. Rajkumar (vice Chairman of INSaF), Dr Thilla (Member of MIN), Father Michael Chua (the Ecclesiastical Assistant of the Kuala Lumpur AMIEA), Revered Dr. Albert Walters (Adjuct Faculty in Seminari Theoloji Malaysia), Sherman Kuek, (Convenor for RoH Malaysia) and Rev. Sivin Kit (Bangsar Lutheran Church). At the request of the delegation, these represented a unique range of individuals that would complement the group of students’ exposure to other experts in religion they would have the opportunity to interact with at other sessions in Kuala Lumpur.

The dialogue started by allowing each of the prominent religious representatives to introduce themselves to the students in attendance, from the University of Singapore and the University of Malaya. Following introductions each speaker briefly addressed what they felt were some important current issues regarding religion in both Malaysia and other countries. During the opening comments by the participants there were several common themes, which were touched on by a number of the speakers. One was the idea of respect, in which members of different religions must learn to respect both the similarities and differences between religions in order to maintain an open and constructive dialogue between religions. Another prominent idea was the notion that there is a need to avoid the politicization of religion and focus on true understanding of other religions in order to dispel misinformation. The last and perhaps the most significant commonality that the speakers shared was the need for members of all faiths to treat others regardless of faith, as they to would like to be treated.

Among the suggestions regarding achieving the common ideas, which the leaders espoused were the promotion of inter-religious public service projects through which members of different religions can interact while working toward a common goal. Another suggestion was the continuation and promotion of inter-religious dialogue as a means to ease inter-religious tension and make progress towards mutual understanding.

When it came time for the question and answer session the students were ready to engage the speakers and their fellow students with a variety of tough questions and uncompromising perspectives. The main themes of the session revolved around the interplay of elements of government and religion, and how this interaction plays out differently when comparing countries such as Singapore and Malaysia. Some of the specific question topics included; the role of Sharia and civil courts, the influence of changes in Middle Eastern Islam on Islam in other countries, the role of the state versus federal governments in determining the role of Islam, the debate between Malaysia as a “secular” vs. an “Islamic” state, how the recent elections in Malaysia have affected the inter-religious dynamics in Malaysian society, and perhaps most importantly how religion can be used both in Malaysia and around the world to promote unity rather than division.

Ultimately, the inter-religious dialogue did not solve any of the inter-religious problems that face Malaysia and other countries around the world. It did, however, serve as a model for the way in which leaders and members of different religions can come together to discuss their similarities and differences in a constructive manner. Ultimately, it is only through dialogue and a position of mutual respect that inter-religious harmony can ever be achieved.

Note: Taken from the CPPS Website

by Helen Ting

[ Published in Eureka Street, 15 April 2008 ]

With the expiry of a five-year ban, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim today regains his freedom to contest a Malaysian general election and internal party election.

Anwar's political comeback is as stunning as his spectacular fall from power following his 1998 fallout with then boss, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir.

The general elections, in which the ruling National Front lost its two-thirds majority in federal parliament and in which the Opposition won control of five state assemblies, have been described as a 'political tsunami'.

For the first time ever, Anwar's multiracial party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR, or the People's Justice Party) won more parliamentary seats than any other opposition party. As a result, Dr Wan Azizah, Anwar's wife, who was also re-elected, has become the Opposition leader.

Commentators have interpreted the results as an endorsement of PKR's electoral pledge to replace decades-old race-based affirmative action with needs-based assistance programs. They argue that racial politics and the battle cry of Malay hegemony have finally been superseded.

'The people have voted decisively for a new era where the government must be truly inclusive and recognise that all Malaysians, regardless of race, culture or religion are a nation of one,' an elated Anwar declared the night the electoral results were known.

The darling of the foreign press, the charismatic and capable Anwar generally receives positive and enthusiastic coverage. Widely seen as the uncontested Prime-Minister-to-be should the opposition gain control of the Parliament, many Malaysians are ready to give Anwar another chance.

But many others harbour lingering doubts. One key concern arises from uncertainty over the extent of Anwar's commitment to multiculturalism.

Until the late 1980s, the conversion of a Muslim to another religion could be validated by making a statutory declaration to that effect. More recently, state registrars have refused to recognise such conversions unless validated by the Syariah courts. Recent cases have shown the Syariah Courts are reluctant or refuse to do their job. A Malay convert to Catholicism, Lina Joy, contested this requirement in the civil courts in order to have the religious status recorded on her identity card rectified without going through the Syariah courts.

Lina lost her case and, while this came as a disappointment to those who are already alarmed by the continuing erosion of the role of the civil courts as the guarantor of constitutional rights including religious freedom, Anwar declared his agreement with the verdict.

Secondly, even though several PKR campaign pamphlets attacked the government's marginalisation of Mandarin and Tamil-medium primary education, the PKR election manifesto contained no measure to rectify the situation. This silence raises doubts as to whether PKR will change the status quo should it win government.

Then there was the question of who would become Chief Minister in Perak after the opposition won that state. The Perak constitution stipulates that the state government should be headed by a Malay although this requirement can be waived by the Sultan. In this instance, none of the newly elected state assemblymen of the Democratic Action Party, the Chinese-based opposition party which gained the most seats, were Malay. Yet, rather than considering the merits of the candidates, Anwar simply objected to having a non-Malay as the Chief Minister, citing the need to protect the Malay position politically and economically.

During the election campaign, he also attacked the previous government for raising petrol prices, and declared that he would lower them, once in power. Such a measure would be immensely popular, but to implement it would cost billions of ringgit in petrol subsidies. Is this the policy of a 'far-sighted' leader when this money could be used to finance a long term solution to the prevailing over-dependence on private cars?

Anwar, who plans to return to the parliament in a by-election, has already announced that he is moving towards forming a new federal government with the help of defectors from the ruling coalition. A question arises as to whether such a 'back door' approach to gaining power is fair to voters, who tend to vote for a party rather than individual candidates. Besides, the opposition parties have previously backed an 'anti-hopping law', which would require elected representatives to resign and stand for by-election should they switch political allegiance.

It remains to be seen whether they will apply the same standard to themselves if and when they come to power.

Guess what? We have yet another new member on our RoH Malaysia team! Well, we did say we were on a project for team expansion, didn't we?

We'd like to introduce you to the newest member on our RoH Malaysia team, Mr P. Sakthivel.

P. Sakthivel
Resource Associate

Sakthi comes with a wealth of experience behind him and has been a great help to researchers, writers, and theological students. He worked in the University of Malaya library for eight years before commencing his work with a local theological library over ten years ago. Over the years, he has acquired formidable skills in obtaining research materials to assist researchers in their research and writing. He serves with RoH Malaysia as a Resource Associate. Sakthi blogs on www.sakthihisthoughts.blogspot.com.

Our next gathering for the RoH Team will be on 8 August 2008. It's guaranteed to be a blast of a gathering for us all, together with the recent additions onto our synergistic team.

To a better Malaysia...

by Helen Ting

[ Published in Malaysiakini, 27 August 2007 ]

Recently, the Islamic credentials of our deputy prime minister have been bolstered by his declaration that Malaysia has always been an Islamic state, "with its own interpretation".

Najib Abdul Razak reportedly gave two arguments to substantiate his position. He stated that Malaysia has always been "driven by our adherence to the fundamentals of Islam" and that Islam is the official religion.

He found an unexpected ally on his position. Raja Petra Kamarudin, an influential blogger well known for his "anti-establishment" views, agrees with Najib.

Raja Petra affirms that "the Constitution clearly expressed the more elevated position of Islam over the other religions". This, for him, proves that Malaysia is not a secular state, but a Negara Islam. Raja Petra takes issue with MCA's claim that "Malaysia is historically a secular state". He asks how far back historically they want to take the statement.

It is clearly possible to take contrary positions on whether Malaysia is a "secular" or "Islamic" state, depending on the definition we apply to either word. It is just like arguing whether a half-filled glass of water is half-empty or half-full. Nevertheless, I disagree with Raja Petra that "all these noises are much ado over nothing."

At the beginning of the 1990s, Hussin Mutalib, an academician who made a study on this issue, concluded that it was unlikely that Malaysia became an Islamic state. It is remarkable that within less than two decades, the gravity of the debate seems to have shifted towards what type of Negara Islam or even Islamic state Malaysia is.

The ultimate question boils down to the practical implications of the constitutional status of Islam as the "religion of the federation" which undoubtedly have been expanding progressively. This trend lends its political legitimacy to the discourse that Malaysia is a Negara Islam. Some even go as far as claiming that Malaysia has, historically, always been a Negara Islam.

Half Truth
Those who argue in favour of Malaysia to be an Islamic state like to say as a matter of fact that after all, Islamic law was the law of the land before the coming of the British. This statement is at best a half-truth.

The late law professor Ahmad Ibrahim, the foremost Malaysian authority of Syariah reforms, stated that in early Malay states, neither the ruler nor any governmental organ could legislate on Syariah Law. When a new situation arose, the prerogative to re-interpret it rested on the learned fuqaha (jurists).

In the Constitution of Terengganu promulgated in 1911, Ahmad Ibrahim noted that Islamic laws and religious matters were considered a separate realm from the civil sphere of law making which concerned "matters for the advancement of the country and its welfare."

In addition, religion and Muslim laws were explicitly excluded from legislative activities, be it "making", "adjusting" or "adding to the laws and regulations."

On the other hand, Ahmad Ibrahim noted that the early Malay state constitutions "show traces of the traditional Islamic polity" and stipulated Islam clearly as the "religion of the state."

The paradoxical fact is that the British administrators could actually claim credit for having contributed to the establishment of a modern Islamic bureaucracy.

The establishment of modern state bureaucracy, infrastructure and resources for greater legal enforcement by the British laid the foundation for the establishment of more formal system of Islamic jurisdiction than hitherto existed in pre-colonial Malaya. In effect, the British legislative system of statutory enactment of law becomes the modern vehicle of further Islamisation under the premiership of Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Legal Bureaucracy
Between 1880 and 1920, Islamic legislation regulating different facets of family lives of the Muslim community was enacted in different states. A legal bureaucracy was created to enforce Islamic legislation enacted in state councils and ensure the functioning of court regulation and the establishment of legal procedures. The first state kathi was appointed in Perak and Selangor in 1880 and 1884 respectively. Though many of the measures had existed haphazardly in the past, the unprecedented feature was their systematic application and the organisation behind it.

In fact, the conception and establishment of a centralised, state-level religious council (Majlis Agama) as an institution for the governance of Islam was first proposed in Kelantan as late as in December, 1915. It later became the model emulated by the other Malay states of the peninsula.

The state councils which enacted this Islamic legislation were presided over by their respective British adviser, though the consent of the Malay Ruler was nominally required for the validity of the laws. The organisation and supervision of the Kathis in matters such as their appointments, salaries, suspensions and dismissals were decided by the respective state council and required the final approval of the governor. By the second decade of the 20th century, extensive machinery for governing Islam was put in place with some sort of state level central organisation to oversee or deliberate on religious matters.

From the point of view of the British administration, statutory enactment of positive laws was meant to provide "Muhammadan law" a form which conformed to British judicial practice while circumscribing it to domains deem acceptable to them. On the part of the Malay ruling class, it was seen as a way for them to extend their influence on Islamic matters.

During the first half of 20th century, the British similarly formalised the application of "Buddhist law" in Burma according to Western legal system, without regards to underlying unwritten custom. A contemporary observer, JS Furnivall, described the situation as akin to a Western doctor looking on native medicine. He commented that, "Indigenous law or custom administered in a foreign court is no less foreign than law proceeding directly from a foreign ruler."

Similar dynamic is perhaps at work regarding the current application of Islamic law in Malaysia. This may explain the current problem of the subordination of Quranic values and principles to fiqh or Islamic jurisprudential tradition as mentioned by Chandra Muzaffar in his recent article on apostasy.

We're extremely pleased to introduce you to the latest addition to the team of RoH Malaysia! As usual, we have always been on a lookout for intellectual talents in our nation who can help us to deepen our understanding of what it means to think and feel with the Church by also beating with the pulse of our nation.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, we would like you to meet Dr Helen Ting:

Dr Helen Ting
BSc with Education (University of Malaya, Malaysia);
DES Development (UCL, Belgium);
DEA Development (UCL, Belgium);
PhD Political Science (Sciences Po, France).

Helen is currently working as a research fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Her research interests include issues in the fields of national identity, national integration, inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations, gender relations and social history. Previously, she worked as part of the Asian and then International Teams of the International Movement of Catholic Students for six years. She sees RoH Malaysia as a space for creative synergy between the faith and social analytical dimensions.

In days and weeks to come, we will be posting up articles that Helen has written for various publication purposes. We hope you will benefit from her perceptive analyses of our nation's political landscape, and grasp a better understanding of what it means to be Malaysian and to be Christian.

Welcome, Helen.