MAIS -Rulers have no Prerogative Power Over Other Religions, says MCCBCHST

Recently,  the  Selangor  lslamic  Council  (MAIS)  issued  a statement  to  the  effect  that  the  use  of  the word “Allah”  by  non-Muslims  is  prohibited.  The statement  by  MAIS also gave  the  impression  that  its  ruling would  be binding on non-Muslims.  This  is  tantamount  to  imposition  of restrictions  by  an lslamic  Council or body against  non-Muslims.  lt  could  also  be seen  as  an  attempt  to  control  the  religious  practice  of a non-Muslim  religion  by an lslamic  body  or  organisation…

ln  this  regard,  in  the  “Herald’s ” case  the High  Court had  held:  ‘…  (i)  The  Rulers  and  YDPA have  no prerogative  powers  to govern  the  affairs  of other  religions  and  the  fact  that  the  affairs  of other  religions are  governed not by  the  Rulers and  YDPA  but by  their  own religious  group  is  clearly enshrined  in  Article 1 1(3)  of the  Federal Constitution.  lf  any action  is  taken  by  Rulers  and  YDPA  which  affect  affairs  of non-lslamic  religions,  such  action  would  be  construed  as unconstitutional.  Further, if  any laws  other  than those  set  out in  Article  11(4)  of the  Federal Constitution  are passed,  such  laws  would  also  be  construed as unconstitutional.

—–

Given below is the full text of Press Statement by MCCBCHST

MCCBCHST Press Statement- 05.02.2013

Press Statement – 5 February 2013
MCCBCHST: MAIS STATEMENT UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Malaysian Consultative Council Of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) is of the view that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution sufficiently provides for and safeguards the right of each person to profess and practice one’s religion of choice. Further, Article 11 (3) expressly provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
Accordingly, any attempt by any party to dilute the rights expressly provided for by the Federal Constitution would be tantamount to denigrating the supreme law of the country.
Recently, the Selangor lslamic Council (MAIS) issued a statement to the effect that the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims is prohibited. The statement by MAIS also gave the impression that its ruling would be binding on non-Muslims. This is tantamount to imposition of restrictions by an lslamic Council or body against non-Muslims. lt could also be seen as an attempt to control the religious practice of a non-Muslim religion by an lslamic body or organisation.

Any attempt to govern non-Muslims or interfere with non-Muslims’ practice of their religion by any Muslim body must be stopped immediately. lt would be against the Federal Constitution. This unhealthy practice could also lead to unwanted social repercussions and raising of tensions between communities.
The Federal Constitution clearly provides and guarantees religious freedom and the right for each religious body to regulate their own affairs. The Federal Constitution under Article 11(4) allows the States to enact laws to restrict propaoation of other religious doctrine or belief among persons
professing the religion of lslam.
However, there are no laws whether Federal or State that enables any Muslim body or organisation to impose rulings or “fatwas” on non-Muslims. In any event, any laws that are inconsistent with the Federal Constitution would be void pursuant to Article 4 of the Federal Constitution.
The only restriction imposed on non-Muslims in the Federal Constitution, pursuant to Article 11(4), would be pertaininglo”propagation of religious doctrine or belief among persons professtng the religion of lslam.” However, there are no restrictions imposed on the practice or propagation of a religion among persons who do not profess or practice lslam. ln other words, if you do not profess or practice lslam then no restrictions may be placed on you as to how you practice your religion. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
ln this regard, in the “Herald’sn’ case the High Court had held: ‘… (i) The Rulers and YDPA have no prerogative powers to govern the affairs of other religions and the fact that the affairs of other religions are governed not by the Rulers and YDPA but by their own religious group is clearly enshrined in Article 1 1(3) of the Federal Constitution. lf any action is taken by Rulers and YDPA which affect affairs of nonlslamic religions, such action would be construed as unconstitutional. Further, if any laws other than those set out in Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution are passed, such laws would also be construed as unconstitutional.
We further view with concern the statement by fhe former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheik Abdul Halim that “non-Muslims cannot use the word “ALLAH” as it is enshrined in the constitution of 10 states that restricts its usage to Muslims only”.
We fail to understand how the former Chief Justice could overlook the fact that all the enactments of the 10 states are made under Article 11( ) of the Federal Constitution, and that Article 11(4) only provides for the ‘ocontrol or propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons professing the religion of lslam” This article does not forbid other religions from propagating to their adherents.
Therefore, the provisions in the State Enactments, forbidding the use of certain words by non’ Muslims is clearty unconstitutional and was therefore rightly held so by the High Court in December 2009.
The fact that “lslam is the religion of the Federation” in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is not disputed by anyone. However, we must point out that it is balanced by the word “and” and the second limb of Article 3 need to be read together with the first limb that is “other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”‘
The provisions of Article 3 (4) that is “Nothing in thls Article derogates from any other provision of this constitution, means that Article 3 stands independently and does not affect other provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Lord President Salleh Abas in Che Omar bin Ghe soh V PP (1988) 2 MLJ 55 (SC) stated

“…the intention in making lslam the official religion of the Federation was
primarily for ceremonial purposes for instance to enable prayers to be offered in the lslamic way on official occasions such as the lnstallation of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, Merdeka Day and similar occasions. This explanation was accepted by the Rulers and accordingly Article 3 enacts that “lslam is the religion of the Federation”. The Supreme court went on to say that the law in the country today is secular law.”

Accordingly, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) supports the decision of our respective member organisations to continue the use of the word “ALLAH” as found in their Holy Scriptures. To otherwise impose any restrictions on any religious group on the practice of its own religion would be unconstitutional.

Signed:

Daozhang  Tan  Hoe Chieow, AMS
President MCCBCHST

Sardar Jagir  Singh
Deputy  President
MCCBCHST

Venerable  Singh  Kan
Vice President
MCCBCHST

Reverend  Dr.  Thomas  Philips
Vice President
MCCBCHST

Y.  Bhg.  Datuk RS. Mohan  Shan,  PMW,  JMW,  AMK, BKM, PJK
Vice President
MCCBCHST

Mr. Prematilaka  KD. Serisena
Hon.  Secretary  General
MCCBCHST

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: