Why do Perkasa and others oppose repeal of the Sedition Act?

The news that Perkasa-ites want to retain the Sedition Act reminds me of a police dog.

Soon after black rights leader Martin Luther King Jr was killed, a police dog needed to be retrained. It had been trained to attack blacks, during riots.

When the United States finally gave blacks the same rights enjoyed by whites, many whites took to the streets. Many blacks countered them.

The mainly white police needed dogs to manage riots. More specifically, they now needed their dogs to attack people not on the basis of colour, but on the basis of behaviour.

So, they set about retraining the dogs. After months of training, one dog decided what was needed of it.

The reliable, devoted and much-loved dog decided that henceforth, its masters wished it to attack whites. For the dog, it was unimaginable that criterion other than race could explain behavior.

Like that dog, some can only see in black and white. They see the world – not just Malaysia – as being made up of two types of people. The first type is Malays. The second type is non-Malays.

According to Perkasa-ites, Malays are homogeneous and non-Malays are homogeneous. According to Perkasa-ites, every waking moment of every non-Malay is spent plotting how to rob Malays of their special, Article 153 position in Malaysia.

According to Perkasa-ites, Malays who recognise the equal importance of equality before the law, Article 8, are misguided and need to be whipped into shape.

“Unimaginable” is the key word Tan Sri Zaman Khan, chairman of the “integrity bureau” of a group which calls itself the Malay Consultative Council (MPM), is reported to have used when proclaiming MPM’s objection to the National Unity Consultative Council’s (NUCC) proposal to replace the Sedition Act with the Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Act.

It matters nothing to Zaman (a former CID director) and his ilk (which includes Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Rahman, a former Malaysia Airlines chairman) that the committee which made the proposal did so after much study, and includes several Malay members.

I have intentionally rehearsed the positions these honoured men held, for they love to flaunt them.

They expect to be listened to more than others because of their positions and honours. They seem unable to believe wisdom may also spring from the young and un-titled – for example, the Prophets of the world’s two largest religions.

Let’s consider our subject, the Sedition Act, a blunt instrument designed in 1948 by the British to quash dissent. The act was amended in 1969, after the riots which were a coup d'etat against Tunku (Abdul Rahman).

The act as it now stands criminalises questioning of some portions of the Federal Constitution. Clause 3(2)(f) makes it explicitly an offence to:

“question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.”

Article 152 covers the national language. Article 153 covers quotas for positions in the public services, seats in institutions of learning, permits, etc for Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 181 covers the sovereignty of the rulers.

If the news report is correct and Aziz did say the Sedition Act prevents Malaysians (Malays included) from questioning Malay “special rights,” he’s wrong.

The Constitution doesn’t provide Malays with special rights; it provides Malays with a “special position” – which allows the government, through the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to discriminate in favour of Malays by giving them special preferences in constitutionally prescribed matters.

The question Perkasa-ites don’t ask is: what about other provisions in the Constitution?

For instance, Article 3 covers Islam and other religions. Article 4 declares the Constitution is the supreme law. Article 6 prohibits slavery and forced labour.

Article 8 assures equality before the law. Since these articles are not listed in the Sedition Act, do these distinguished men claim is it okay to question the position of Islam, the supremacy of the Constitution, the prohibition of slavery and the principle of equality before the law? I think not.

What then drives their desire to retain the Sedition Act? Why do they wish to do so when even our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, wishes to repeal the Sedition Act?

The problem is this: only countries like China and South Korea have acts like the Sedition Act on their books.

The problem with the Sedition Act is the ease with which people can be selectively and easily convicted. The problem with the Sedition Act is clause 3(3):

“For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this act, the intention of the person charged… shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.”

For conviction, most criminal laws require proof of mens rea (intention). But not the Sedition Act!

Presently many Muslim-Malaysians are pushing for the implementation of shariah criminal law. They do so partly because of the importance Islam places upon convicting only on the basis of reliable evidence. At least for me, some long-hidden, noble aspects of Islamic jurisprudence are emerging.

The mainly white police needed dogs to manage riots. More specifically, they now needed their dogs to attack people not on the basis of colour, but on the basis of behaviour.

So, they set about retraining the dogs. After months of training, one dog decided what was needed of it.

The reliable, devoted and much-loved dog decided that henceforth, its masters wished it to attack whites. For the dog, it was unimaginable that criterion other than race could explain behaviour.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/why-do-perkasa-and-others-oppose-repeal-of-the-sedition-act-rama-ramanathan#sthash.D5GjwfCZ.dpuf

Therefore, I am especially shocked that the two Tan Sris are agitating to retain a British artifice whose prime purpose was to obtain easy convictions.

The trouble with the Sedition Act is the selective conviction (“prosecution” seems inaccurate) it assures. The Sedition Act mocks Article 8 and puts us with North Korea.

The dog never learned that agitators occur across all races and that it is shameful to attack people on the basis of race. The dog was moved to a place where it could neither hurt nor embarrass.

Some will remain stuck in time (1969 was 45 years ago). We live in the Bersih era.

I hope our prime minister will have the wisdom of the dog trainers. – June 14, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/why-do-perkasa-and-others-oppose-repeal-of-the-sedition-act-rama-ramanathan#sthash.D5GjwfCZ.dpuf

Oh, how they lied

This is quite an experience. Parts of it are very triggering, frankly. Reading through all the medieval interpretations of Q 4:34 as well as the views of the jurists who followed the four Sunni madhhabs, was really something. Much of it I had encountered before, mostly through reading… but that was in dribs and drabs. The overall effect of all that delivered at one fell swoop was really, well… horrifying. Just bone-freezingly horrifying.

For several reasons: Because the misogyny of “the tradition” was simply undeniable. Because it kept mentioning things that had happened to friends of mine, or to me, or which had been reported on the news… and we had been assured that it is “unIslamic” and that “no true Muslim would do such a thing” or “this is a misinterpretation.” And it wasn’t true. Which brings me to the third, and in a way, the worst reason: Because they lied. Those imams, shaykhs, community leaders, study circle teachers, people we looked up to and trusted… lied.

I can’t count how many times down through the years that we were told in so many ways that marriage “according to the true teachings of Islam” is ultimately all about love and compassion. That while men and women have different roles in marriage, this is according to the design of the all-wise Creator, and therefore these differences are intended for the benefit of both of them, as well as for the benefit of the children, and society as a whole.

Well, not only does it turn out that this idea derived from 1950′s-’60′s functionalism (a very secular sociological theory devised by non-Muslims, btw—the horror!) rather than the Qur’an, the sunna or “the tradition,” but medieval Qur’an commentators and jurists to a man saw marriage primarily in terms of what men (aka not women, or even children) were entitled to. And among the things that most of these scholars held that a man is entitled to is an obedient wife. We’d heard that often enough… but with the edges of the definitions of “obedience” typically softened.

We heard different definitions of “obedience”—everything ranging from a woman performing her ritual duties properly, to obeying her husband in everything unless he commands her to do something sinful. But we never heard the opinion that a wife who, say, had been in the habit of meeting her husband with a smile but ceased to do so is “disobedient” and therefore should be admonished, separated from in bed, and if he deems it necessary, beaten. (!?)

This is the sort of interpretation that had me wondering wtf?? Since when does hitting someone for not being cheerful or welcoming enough make them more rather than less cheerful or welcoming? The author wryly points out that she can think of any number of reasons why a woman might not be in a smile-y mood (illness, tiredness… I’d add pregnancy or cramps or in-law problems) that have nothing to do with her attitude to her husband. But the scholars with this particular take on disobedience were not at all concerned with trying to understand why a wife might behave in a way that her husband finds less than satisfying, as the author points out—their focus was on what the husband is entitled to. He was entitled to a wife who pleases him. She however was not entitled to a husband who pleases her. If she got that, then that was a bonus, but she had no legal or moral right to it, in their view.

I thought I had heard or read most of the most emphatically misogynistic hadiths about a husband’s entitlements and a wife’s obligations already, but there were a few that I hadn’t encountered before, such as the instruction to men to “hang your whip where your family can see it.” The point that got me about that one was not whether hadith scholars would have graded it as authentic (I suspect not), but that many scholars evidently agreed with the sentiment behind it.

This was another thing—we heard that a man can’t hit his wife unless he has first talked to her about whatever-it-is that is displeasing him, and then refused to sleep with her (and that these steps pretty much ensure that a man won’t usually get to the stage where he’ll be hitting his wife, at least theoretically). And that if a man did hit his wife, it was to be “gently” with his hand, or a miswak, or even a handkerchief… and that this is nothing like a beating, much less any sort of abuse. But in fact, some medieval scholars argued that there is no obligation on the husband to discipline his wife in stages—he can scold her, separate from her, and beat her on the same occasion, or hit her before even telling her what he is objecting to. Some wrote about hitting wives with sticks, switches, whips, sandals and other objects. This puts a different spin on the often-used qualification of the hitting—that it is supposed to be “ghayr mubarrih.” While we were told that “ghayr mubarrih” means something like “not harmful” or “not violent” (which is absurd, given that striking anyone is intrinsically violent, but anyway…), how do you hit someone with a whip without harming them?? Sure, it may not break bones or leave physical wounds (depending on the whip used and the “skill” of the user…) but what scars would that leave on a person’s soul? Hitting someone with sandals—absolutely degrading.

But here I am getting off track again. Reading this stuff with a twenty-first century North American post-Enlightenment middle class urban eye. This was not the world of the medieval scholars who wrote that stuff. In their world, violence was ubiquitously visible in a way that it often isn’t in ours. We tend to push the many acts of violence that make our own world possible away, into other places (such as halfway around the world…) where we don’t have to see it or admit that it is there. They were much more upfront about the violence that kept their world together.

Even more to the point, many of the worlds that those we looked up to to interpret “the Islamic tradition” for us had come from were held together with levels of violence we hadn’t experienced. And to the extent that we encountered or experienced it, it deeply horrified us.

And so on down… this book dragged me back. Memory after memory came to me unbidden, and with them, waves of nausea. A man beating several kids with a stick. They’d been playing in a park. For some wrongdoing-or-other I suppose, but I didn’t see them doing anything wrong. The other kids watched as they he hit them. The violence when we lived with my in-laws. The screaming and shouting and after that the silence about what had just happened and the expectation that everyone act like this is all normal. The signs: “Warning: heavily mined.” The empty shell casings and hand grenades on the road, the twelve year old boys with AK-47s, and the bullet holes in the walls of abandoned houses. The stories of torture and disappearances….

When your world is like that, I suppose that a calm reasoned discussion of how to “ethically” hit one’s wife in an old book doesn’t seem all that out there. Because what is violence if not inevitable?

But some of those who we had looked up to had been converts. Who had grown up here. And not in the gang violence-scarred inner city, either. Why had they willingly bought into the myth that “the Islamic tradition” as passed down to us by “the great scholars of the past” has a vastly superior morality (especially where anything related to gender roles, marriage and family are concerned), and actively promoted it to others? Some of them might not have read all of these texts that Chaudhry discusses, but then why would they pass themselves off as having such great knowledge of the tradition?

I remember one of them assuring me that sex and violence are always connected and can’t be separated. Waves of nausea, again….

Who were these men, and why had they sought power over us? And who were these women, who thought they could make a home for themselves in such a straightforwardly patriarchal tradition as scholars or activists?

Blind, trusting faith. The power of wishful thinking. And for some, the seductive lure of exercising power over others. Claiming to have the keys to the tradition makes you the owner of the keys of earth and heaven.

Reading through what those scholars of the past said, I kept noticing scholars’ approval or acceptance of things that had happened (mostly to others, but sometimes to me) that we had been given to understand are “unIslamic” or a “misinterpretation” or “culture, not Islam.” That depends on how “Islam” is being defined, of course—and it was always a slippery category, I realized. The goal posts were always in motion, but if anyone would try to point that out, it would immediately be denied that anything had moved at all. Gaslighting. It enabled endless plausible deniability, and kept us unsure of where the lines were—and therefore, ever more dependent on those we looked to for guidance to tell us what is what. We thought they held our chances of salvation in their hands.

I particularly like Chaudhry’s discussion of contemporary conservative Muslim interpretations of Q 4:34. It was deeply disturbing and hilarious by turns. On the hilarious side, who would have imagined that a conservative scholar would plagiarize a column from “Dear Abby” and pass it off as what the Qur’an and sunna say about how to have a good marriage?? (just ROFL..) It was deeply satisfying to see her puncture the claims of a certain well known convert to have such a superior and deep understanding of Arabic that he even knows better than most Arabs how to interpret Q 4:34.

But at the same time, we’re back to the issue of truth, and those who play fast and loose with it. Arguments like that essentially rest on appealing to people’s ignorance and fear. Those making the “I have a sublime command of Arabic and even most Arabs don’t have this” argument in order to shore up their own interpretations of Q 4:34 bank on one of two things: Either the audience will be too intimidated by such a display of “knowledge” to object, or they realize that is going on but let the inaccurate claims about “the tradition” slide because they want to see Islam presented in a positive way (especially in front of non-Muslims).

But this is straight-up manipulation. In the era of the internet, how can it possibly work as a long-term strategy? Today, anyone who wants to (and who can read classical Arabic) can look up 4:34 in thirty or more medieval Qur’an commentaries with a few clicks of the mouse. Perhaps these leaders are banking on people’s laziness or gullibility? Or on people’s wish to believe that “the Islamic tradition” holds all the answers and their aversion to criticizing it?

But strategies and mundane considerations aside—HOW COULD THEY LIE ABOUT SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT??

How could they claim to be thoroughly familiar with “the Islamic tradition” right down to the legal texts and the Qur’an commentaries, and then quote snippets of these very selectively as of this is the whole story? How could they play word games, claiming that hitting is somehow not violent or abusive? How could some authors make polemical claims about abuse statistics that essentially boil down to tu quoque? Or to claim that some women “need” to be hit and find pleasure in it?

It’s not just that they made inaccurate, fallacious and otherwise bad arguments, that effectively maintained that abuse is not a “Muslim problem” and silenced women who were dealing with abuse. We were told that we had to believe what they said. That this is what “Islam says” or “the tradition says,” and only those who rebel against God or are unreasonably prejudiced or have surrendered to the evil desires of their nafs would not recognize it as just and fair.

Thing is, they lied, and as a result, we also lied to ourselves.

Some of them lied for the same reasons that we ended up lying. They had faith. They wanted to believe the best of God, the Prophet, and the scholars. They couldn’t square the circle of a misogynistic tradition with their own internal sense of justice, so something had to give. The tradition had to mean something else. The great scholars of the past must have somehow been talking about mutuality and harmony in a marriage between spiritually equal partners after all.

I wonder if this book will put a stop to this type of dishonesty. “The tradition” is now laid out before us in all its horror, so quoting the few bits and pieces of it that “sound good” (especially when decontextualized) won’t wash any more.

But who knows.

(Ayesha Chaudhry’s Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.)

Izwan is no Abraham – Azlan Abdul Razak

When God commanded Abraham to "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you" (Genesis 22: 1-2), it was with the greatest pain and sadness that he obliged, all in the name of His love for God.

Such is a noble attribute of Abraham, the Prophet. He obeyed with no scintilla of doubt the command to sacrifice Isaac in the name of piety. However, He does not expect the self-same reciprocity in return of His sacrifice - nor is He desirous in seeing such manner of death in His name, simply because we are not Him.

Everyone is not Him. In fact, no one can afford to be Him. So cannot Izwan Abdullah.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/izwan-is-no-abraham-azlan-abdul-razak#sthash.hhLXbPPg.dpuf

Izwan does not have to evidence his faith by dragging his unsuspecting kids into the nasty thicket he himself chose to traverse. He could have spared himself the public wrath and eternal chastisement for converting his minor kids without the consent of their mother, by realising that God never expects his offering of converted kids to truly believe that Izwan is indeed a firm believer.

Izwan does not need to offer his kids to God. Izwan is not Abraham.

What has now morphed into a hurtful enmity between Izwan and Deepa could actually have been eschewed by the profound reflection on the interests of the children and most ultimately, on the respect for the law.

Constitutional Catch-22

The most crucial dilemma that needs immediate attention is the jurisdictional conflict between the Shariah and civil court. While it is not disputed that by virtue of Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, where no civil court would have any jurisdiction over individuals professing the religion of Islam, it must be noted that Shariah Court is an inferior court and its powers and jurisdiction are limited by the state enactment.

Lest we forget, Justice Lee Swee Seng in his judgment of the recent case between Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah and Indira Gandhi held that the High Court had supervisory power over Shariah courts which had a very parochial scope of exercisable powers and jurisdiction.

The crunch came when the unilateral conversion of the children took place. Without the knowledge of the mother, Izwan had, on his own accord converted his daughter and son into Islam, the religion he was never converted into, but instead chose to convert into.

The plot thickens when he took away his son, aged 6, from Deepa’s house on the pretext that his action was justified by virtue of the custody order granted to him by the Shariah Court.

Despite the Federal Court decision in Subashini a/p Rajasingam and Saravana (2008) holding that Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution must not be read as entrenching the right of choice of religion in both parents, one must not forget that the Federal Constitution, which serves as a determinant of destiny in our nation that upholds the appreciation of equal rights, devoid of any desire to favour interested individuals, does not discriminate against anyone, and since the children are from the equal union between a husband and a wife, it is with this spirit of equality that the word "Parent" in Clause 4 of Article 3 must mean to include both parents of the children in question.

One might, however heave a sigh of slight relief upon noting a much liberal view that is incorporated into the debate, wherein Justice Abdul Aziz Mohamad in Subashini’s case stated that although he agreed on the singularity of the word "Parent" in Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution, he held that such view does not mean that the other parent is proscribed from claiming his or her right to object or to prevent the child from being taught about religion or generally, being converted into Islam.

Constitutional crevasse will otherwise crack much wider if only one parent is allowed to determine the religion of the children while the other is deprived of the same opportunity.

Live and let live

It is such an act of most abominable nature when religion is used to quicken one’s pursuit of desire.

In the case of Izwan when his 6-year-old son was converted into Islam, it is doubted that he son was fully aware of the essence of the Affirmation of Faith that he had declared.

In the case of Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai and Shaik Zolkaffly bin Shaik Natar and Ors. (2002), the Court of Appeal held that a civil court continued to have the jurisdiction to declare the conversion as being at variance with the law, even if the administration of Islamic law was within the power of the State law.

In that case, the Court declared that a conversion of a minor null and void since the infant had not attained the age of baligh.

It can be seen that in the fractious dispute between spouses, religion is often used as an ingenious contrivance to gain custody of the children by the converting partner. By converting a minor into Islam without ensuring his complete understanding of the said oath, conversion cannot be said to be have been effected.

It is submitted that the act of conversion is nothing short of an abuse of the process of court in that the converting partner will be allowed to have his claim for custody heard in the Shariah Court in the absence of the non-converting partner by virtue of the Shariah Court jurisdiction that excludes any matters involving non-Muslims.

While the law recognises the right of the "Parent", though arguable it may be, to decide on the religion of the children, one must not forget that it does not just take a mere utterance of the Affirmation of Faith to make one a Muslim through and through.

If it is indeed the honest wish of the converting partner to embrace the religion of his choice, why are the wish and choice of the children not considered at all when deciding on who the children are most faithful in submitting themselves to?

Izwan may have found his sempiternal love for his God of choice. Let him be. He does not need any prophetic offering to impress God further as Abraham did.
Izwan is not Abraham and never will he be. – June 2, 2014.

If Tunku was still alive, he’d curse everyone for the state of the nation, says Ku Li

If the country’s first prime minister was still alive today, he would curse everybody because of the lack of leadership that has led to the present state of the nation, a former finance minister said today.

Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (pic), also known as Ku Li, said the late Tunku Abdul Rahman would have been very upset with what people are saying and doing as this was counter to everything he believed in.

"He would curse everybody. (What is happening) completely counters what he advocated. He wanted peace.

"He was a man of peace and he nurtured harmony and he liked people to help one another no matter what racial, religious or cultural backgrounds they have. That was Tunku," Ku Li told reporters in Penang today.

On why the Tunku met with obstacles and challenges from within Umno despite his noble beliefs and struggles for the nation, Ku Li said the founding father and his detractors were from different times.

"Maybe they were from different times and were brought up differently.

"Some people generally have an inferiority complex, and they use all these points to exploit the situation," said Ku Li.

Popularly referred to as the Father of Independence, Tunku faced criticism from Umno, as well as from successor Tun Abdul Razak, in the years after the nation's split with Singapore in 1965 and the racial riot on May 13, 1969.

He was forced to step down as prime minister in favour of Razak on September 22, 1970, and as Umno president the following year after being opposed by younger leaders.

One of those younger leaders was Malaysia's fourth prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was expelled from Umno by the Tunku in 1969 and accepted back into Umno in 1972.

Ku Li attributed the situation in the country today to a lack of leadership because the people in such position are not exercising the leadership role given to them.

"That is what people are telling me... that is why there is a falling apart of respect and regard for authority.

"There are certain times when leaders must be prepared to be unpopular, where they must put their foot down... there are certain things that are beyond the bounds of even expression.

"You may have your freedom of speech but there is a limit to what you can say," he said calling it a case of applying some common sense.

"If people are allowed to go on a ‘merry-go-round’, free to say and do as they like, all hell will break loose.

"When leaders do not put their foot down and control the situation, that would mean they are not smart enough as they fail to see the dangers faced by society," he added.

Ku Li said he felt people were raising many questions nowadays because they were not happy or comfortable with the situation of the country.

"I am also responding because I have heard these noises and the remarks which really does not make it comfortable nor good for society," he said.

Referring to DAP assemblyman R.S.N. Rayer’s “Umno celaka” and the reactions it caused, Ku Li said some groups tend to be extreme in their views and actions.

However, to be fair, he said there are also those who provoke these people, knowing fully well there are extreme elements within any particular grouping.

"Why do you land yourself in such possibilities by making provocative remarks?

"I don't sympathise with those who take the law into their own hands. This is a society with laws and nobody can do what they feel like doing. We can't have anarchy," he said.

Ku Li dismissed any notion of degradation in the quality of elected members of Parliament and state assemblymen as they were elected by the people.

"Are you saying that the people are stupid?" he said, adding that the leaders of these groups should educate their members.

On whether the country needs to go back to the roots of what Tunku tried to advocate, Ku Li said both yes and no.

Earlier, Ku Li launched a book in honour of the Tunku entitled “Enduring Truths from Statements and Words of Al-Marhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Our Beloved Founder of Our Nation”.

The book, which is a compilation of Tunku's words and remarks, was launched to mark the anniversary of his 111th birthday and the 10th anniversary of the Penang Goodwill Council this year.

In his keynote address at the launching ceremony, Ku Li said the book is "without doubt a most useful collectible as our founding father is without peers and has been assured of a place in Malaysian as well as world history."

He added that it was a good source of information on Tunku for the nation's youth.

Tunku Abdul Rahman was born on February 8, 1903, and died on December 6, 1990, at the age of 87 in Kuala Lumpur. – May 30, 2014.