SEPTEMBER 2 — 1. The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) refers to a report in the Daily Express dated August13,2024 which stated that “Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Vice-President David Ong, raised concerns regarding reports that officers from the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim), will be placed in every government department to ensure decisions align with Islamic Principles”. Before this there have been various announcements to expand the role of Jakim, for example by the YAB Prime Minister stating “Federal Government wants Jakim’s role to be expanded – Anwar” (Bernama June 11, 2023). There have been criticisms too re Jakim’s role: “Politics at play in PM’s empowering of Jakim, says ex-civil servant (FMT June 15, 2023) ; “Ku Li : Jakim an unconstitutional Body (FMT February 1, 2018); “Anwar seems intent on expanding the role and powers of Jakim (Department of Islamic Development) in the affairs of the Government”. (Dennis Ignatius: June 15, 2023), Etc:
2. The MCCBCHST is concerned with this move to place Jakim officers in every department and Ministry which appears to ensure that Government policies are in line with Islamic Principles. This move has the potential to affect the constitutional safeguards provided in the Constitution including the Fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 5 to 13, which also form the basic structure of the Constitution. Further, Article 4(1) provides for the “Constitution to be the supreme law of the Federation....” This means any laws promulgated or policies decided must be in line and intra vires of the constitution.
3. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation.........” which has been interpreted by the Highest Courts to mean Islamic “Rituals and Ceremonies.” Thus, Jakim’s involvement in government policy making may be unconstitutional as in the PUBLIC SPHERE only such Islamic acts as relating “to rituals and ceremonies” are included. This position is well settled in law. In Che Omar Bin Che Soh V. Public Prosecutor [1988]2MLJ 55 the Supreme Court when deciding on Article 3(1) stated. “Held: (1) the term “Islam” or “Islamic religion” in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the context means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies;”
The Supreme Court (a unanimous decision of 5 Judges) further stated that Islam is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities. The Supreme Court then goes on to ask “was this the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitution.” To answer it, the Supreme Court then traced “the history of Islam in this Country after the British intervention in the affairs of the Malay states at the close of the last century” and answered the question as follows: “Thus, it can be seen that during the British colonial period through their system of indirect rule and establishment of secular institutions, Islamic law, was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law of marriage, divorce and inheritance only.” The Supreme Court then concluded to say that “it is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word “Islam” in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise 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, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter.”
4. This Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Bin Che Soh, has been subsequently approved and followed by 3 subsequent Federal Court decisions, that is: (1) Indira Gandhi A/P Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & 2 others. (2) Iki Putra Bin Mubarak v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor (2021) (3) Nik Elin Zurina Binti Nik Abdul Rashid Anor v. Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan (2024). In all these 3 Federal Court decisions 22 out of 23 Federal Court Judges had approved and followed Che Omar Bin Che Soh Supreme Court decision. The sole dissenting voice was on the question that Plaintiffs did not have the locus standi.
5. The MCCBCHST wholly supports Article 3 (1) provision of Islam as being the religion of the Federation. The 4 Supreme Court/Federal Court decisions have ruled that “Islam” in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the context means only such acts as related to rituals and ceremonies. In Article 3 context “Islam” or “Islamic religion does not include Islamic way of life as is generally understood to mean. Islamic way of life is included in Article 11 (1)- “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion” and this is in the private sphere. Thus, Jakim’s involvement in the formulation of Government policies to purportedly ensure they are aligned to Islamic principles is in the Public sphere where it has no jurisdiction to do so. Further this encroachment into the public sphere may be unconstitutional as it may affect the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Malaysians. The MCCBCHST therefore calls upon the Government and the Members of Parliament to remain true to their Oath of office taken to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” and also remain true to the Rukun Negara which protects diversity of Cultures in the Country. This route will ensure Unity of all races in Malaysia and rapid advancement of the Country.
Statement signed by:
Dao Zhang Tan Hoe Chieow Venerable Chuan Yuan
President MCCBCHST Deputy President MCCBCHST
President — Federation of Taoist Asst. Dharma Propagation Officer of
Associations Malaysia (FTAM) Malaysian Buddhist Association (MBA)
Archbishop Julian Leow Beng Kim Sardar Jagir Singh
Vice President MCCBCHST Vice President MCCBCHST
Honorary Treasurer — President — Malaysian Gurdwaras Council (MGC)
Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM)
Ganesh Babu Rao
Vice President MCCBCHST
Deputy President
Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS)
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
