Written by lainie at 02:37 AM on July 28, 2006.

Don't read papers = Blur = Someone fill me in please?

Already I'm blur. Now they say we shouldn't talk about this. I mean, thanks, I've always wanted to be stupid, it's my greatest ambition and you're being so helpful.

There's a media blackout on Article 11. So, I'm putting this up on my blog. Can someone tell me why IFC is such a "(BLOODY) sensitive issue"? Cmon. I'll love to hear the whopper they came up with this time.

I think this is the simplest thing I've read so far:

"What is our culture now? Not just a culture of fear, but fearing the wrong things it seems - we fear rational peaceful dialogue rather than silence, we fear thinkers rather than bullies, we fear loss of votes rather than loss of integrity. "

Kathy Rowland, Kakiseni.com - Articles of Faith.

====

Why can't we talk about this?:

Article 11

The coalition of NGOs known as Article 11 is committed to embracing, upholding and pursuing the realization of the following principles as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and Human Rights Conventions:

1. no citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender

2. parents (both mother and father) are equal guardians and have equal say in all respects of the upbringing of children

3. children shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion and in all cases, the interests of children shall be paramount

4. the freedom of thought, conscience and belief for all persons shall be fully respected, guaranteed and protected

5. every citizen has a responsibility to condemn discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief

6. every citizen has a responsibility to apply religion or belief in support of human dignity and peace

Article 11 is fully committed to upholding those fundamental rights for all Malaysians regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

=====

And why can't we talk about this?:

26 July 2006
ATTENTION: NEWS EDITORS

Press Statement

Article 11 Unrelated to Inter-Faith Commission

A press statement by Article 11, a coalition of Malaysian NGOs committed to upholding the fundamental rights of all Malaysians regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

Article 11 is very concerned that the Prime Minister's statement reported in today's press, calling for a halt to Article 11's public forums, is based on the widespread but mistaken belief that the coalition's activities are aimed at reviving the initiative to establish an Inter-Faith Commission (IFC).

Article 11 would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the forums, entitled "Federal Constitution: Protection for All", are in no way related with the IFC initiative. Rather, Article 11's forums focus on the rights that the Federal Constitution, as the supreme law of Malaysia, guarantees to each citizen. The forums are also intended to highlight the concerns of civil society resulting from the plight of various individuals who are unable to obtain legal redress and who therefore suffer as a result of the current jurisdictional uncertainty in the courts. There is no discussion about the IFC in Article 11's public forums or other activities.

Article 11 will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister to request further information about his concerns regarding the coalition's activities and to provide clarification on the misconception that linksArticle 11 with the IFC.

Article 11 takes note of the Prime Minister's concerns. The coalition members will meet soon, and will carefully consider his advice in its discussions of future plans.

=====

Dan kenapa.....Yknow what, I'll spare you guys my (usually accidental) abuse of the Malay language:

KENYATAAN AKHBAR

Artikel 11 Tiada Kaitan dengan IFC (Inter-faith Commission)

Kenyataan akhbar oleh kumpulan Artikel 11, sebuah gabungan NGO-NGO Malaysia yang bertekad mempertahankan hak-hak asasi rakyat Malaysia, tanpa mengira agama, bangsa, keturunan, tempat kelahiran dan jantina.

Artikel 11 sangat prihatin terhadap kenyataan Perdana Menteri yang dilaporkan di akhbar-akhbar hari ini yang mengarahkan Artikel 11 berhenti menganjurkan forum-forum umum. Kami percaya kenyataan beliau mungkin didasarkan oleh kesilapfahaman yang telah tersebar luas, yang mendakwa aktiviti-aktiviti gabungan ini bertujuan untuk menimbulkan semula inisiatif mewujudkan Suruhanjaya Antara Agama (IFC).

Artikel 11 ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk menjelaskan bahawa forum-forum umum bertajuk "Federal Constitution: Protection for All" tiada kaitan langsung dengan inisiatif IFC. Forum-forum Artikel 11 sebenarnya menumpukan kepada hak-hak asasi setiap rakyat yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Malaysia yang merupakan undang-undang utama di Malaysia. Forum-forum tersebut juga bertujuan untuk mengenengahkan keresahan masyarakat awam terhadap kes-kes beberapa individu yang tidak mendapat pembelaan undang-undang dan terpaksa menanggung kesusahan akibat wujudnya masalah bidangkuasa mahkamah. Tiada sebarang perbincangan tentang IFC di forum-forum umum Artikel 11.

Artikel 11 akan berusaha mengaturkan pertemuan dengan Perdana Menteri untuk mengetahui lebih lanjut kemusykilannya terhadap aktiviti-aktivi gabungan ini dan seterusnya memberi penjelasan terhadap kekeliruan yang mengaitkan Artikel 11 dan IFC.

Artikel 11 mengambil perhatian terhadap pandangan Perdana Menteri. Ahli-ahli gabungan akan segera mengadakan pertemuan untuk mengambilkira pandangan Perdana Menteri dalam perancangan aktiviti-aktiviti di masa masa hadapan.

=====

[ And this is from Malik Imtiaz, president of HAKAM ]

Dear all,

I am the current President of the Nasional Human Rights Society (HAKAM).

HAKAM is a member of the coalition which calls itself "Article 11". You would have read about the controversy surrounding the road-show currently underway. The forum in Penang held in May was disrupted by protestors. The forum in Johor Bahru held earlier this month was almost disrupted and was regrettably shortened, again due to protestors. There is a significant amount of material on the web in the Bahasa Malaysia language which, while doing many things, chiefly presents a distorted picture of not only what Article 11 is attempting to achieve but also the way things are. These distortions have perhaps unfortunately become the foundation of the Prime Minister's caution as reported in the media on 26th July 2006. I believe it is essential to set the record straight, not only for the security of those concerned but also for the sake of the nation.

The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives.

Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this states of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly objectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the Government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could through recommendations assist the Government of the day in shaping coherent policy pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the Government. That is where all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended.

The Article 11 initiative is however aimed at creating awareness of the
Federal Constitution, the guarantees provided therein and the concept of the rule of law against the context of increasing assertions that Malaysia is in law an Islamic State. In presenting the Federal Constitution, the initiative has at no point sought to question the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia. That is what the Constitution says, after all. Neither has the initiative sought to challenge or attack the administration of Islamic Law nor the esteemed position of the Rulers.

The initiative has however shown that the provisions in the Constitution
relating to Islam have a context and, amongst other things, are to be read in the light of the constitutional declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. The context being suggested by Article 11 is not that of the members of Article 11, the organisers or even the speakers at the forums. The context being suggested is one which the courts of this country have recognised. The suggestion that Malaysia is a secular country has recently been wrongly attributed to persons who have unfairly been indirectly characterised as trouble makers intent on attacking the administration of Islam. That is wholly incorrect.

The statement is one of declared law. In the 1988 Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court declared:

"..we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this
country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted
by the law is not enjoying the status of the law? Until the law and the
system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today."

The law stands as that decision of the Supreme Court has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the Court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal answered in the affirmative, indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh.

We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and thus an Islamic Country, and a country in which the supreme law is the syariah, an Islamic State. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

"If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution?".

As an illustration, the Pakistani constitution has provisions which declare the syariah law as the supreme law of Pakistan, and any laws inconsistent with the syariah as being void. The Malaysian Constitution does not.

Furthermore, our constitutional history clearly reflects that the thinking of the alliance leaders and all key stakeholders in the period leading to the establishment of the Federal Constitution. That while Islam was to be given protected status, as a matter of law and the application of law, Malaysia was to be a secular, Westminster Style democracy. This thinking, having gone to the establishment of the free nation of Malaya and then later, Malaysia, with its gloriously pluralist, multi-racial, multi-religious make up, cannot be dismissed as being mere opinion.

In view of this, it is grossly unreasonable for various parties to have characterised Article 11 as having challenged the status of Islam as the official religion and the status quo. Article 11 has not done so, it has championed the law including the declaration of Islam as the official religion of the Federation. Conversely, it is its detractors who have, through distortions and by praying on religious and racial sensitivities, sought to challenge the status quo. Perhaps because it is this very process of mixing religion, politics and the rule of law and the ensuing confusion that Article 11, has been cautioning against. Regrettably, this process is gaining ground.

This is not say that I or Article 11 condemns those who aspire to put in
place around them a complete system based on syariah principles. That aim should however be achieved through constitutional process, that is
constitutional change. The Federal Constitution, in as much as it is a
living document, cannot be subverted through reinterpretations inconsistent with the objectives underlying the Federal Constitution when it was introduced in 1957. That would be amount to a hijacking of the Federal Constitution and the social contract it put in place.

by Malik Imtiaz

Article 11 comprises:

1. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
2. Bar Council Malaysia
3. Catholic Lawyers Society
4. Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship
5. Malaysian Civil Liberties Society, Protem Committee (MCLS)
6. Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism & Sikhism MCCBCHS)
7. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
8. Pure Life Society
9. Sisters In Islam (SIS)
10. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
11. Vivekananda Youth Movement, Seremban
12. Women's Aid Organization (WAO)
13. Women's Development Collective (WDC)
26 July 2006ATTENTIONNEWS EDITORS

=====

Article 11
Lucia Lai: Lol at the protestors.

Login to your account to post comment

You are not logged into your Tabulas account. Please click here to login.

Post comment as a guest

Your name:

Your email: (will not be posted publicly)

Your website:

Advanced: Post comment as HTML