SEPTEMBER 15 — To mull is to think about (something) slowly and carefully.
To mull something over is to think carefully about something for a period of time.
So, when it was reported that the Malaysian Islamic development department (Jakim) was mulling mandatory halal certification certs for restaurants and food companies that do not serve pork or alcohol, the word “mull” speaks for what religious affairs minister Na’im Mokhtar was thinking.
It is that Jakim was thinking about the mandatory halal certification slowly and carefully, and over a period of time.
That the thought process is slow, careful and over a period time was clearly in the mind of the minister when he said that “to mandate that all (restaurants) have halal certification, several Acts or laws will need to be amended. Many agencies will need to be involved in enforcing this.”
Halal matters are intricate, intertwined between Federal and State legislative powers.
Article 74 of the Federal Constitution divides the legislative powers of the Federation of Malaysia between the Federal government and the State governments.
Article 74(1) provides that the Federal Parliament has the power to enact laws on any matters enumerated in the Federal List (List I) and Concurrent List (List III) as set out in the Ninth Schedule.
Article 74(2) provides that the State Legislative Assembly has the power to pass any laws on matters contained in the State List (List II, List IIA – Supplement to State List for States of Sabah and Sarawak) and Concurrent List (List III, List IIIA – Supplement to Concurrent List for States of Sabah and Sarawak) as set out in the Ninth Schedule.
A study of the Lists — List I, List II, List IIA, List III and List IIIA — shows that Halal matters may fall under List I (Federal List), List II (State List), List III (Concurrent List) and List IIIA (Supplement to Concurrent List for Sabah and Sarawak).
Accordingly, it has been argued that the administration and enforcement of Halal matters are matters intertwined between Federal and State jurisdictions. (See Nurhafila Musa and Faridah Jalil, “Halal Products – Malaysian Constitution Perspective”, SSRN Electronic Journal, September 2012. Available here.) This is shown in the Table below:
So Na’im was right when he said that several Acts or laws would have to be amended to provide for mandatory halal certification for restaurants.
It might not even happen at the next parliamentary sittings scheduled to be held from Oct 14 to Dec 12.
I can’t therefore fathom Teresa Kok’s quick comments to the report of Jakim’s mulling over the mandatory halal certification. The Seputeh MP said she was only performing her duty as an elected lawmaker.
“As a Member of Parliament, I am responsible for voicing the problems and voices of the people of various races,” she said.
But as an MP, she is also responsible to explain to “the people of various races” that the proposal was just a proposal — a mull — that would take time to crystallise, if at all. She should know as she was a former minister.
While noting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s remarks that she should have discussed the matter first instead of making statements openly, Kok said she could not have raised her views through internal channels as Na’im’s proposal was made in an open forum without engaging with lawmakers first.
But again, Na’im’s proposal was just a proposal. Kok still had the forums — the scheduled parliamentary sittings, among others — to raise her and the people’s concerns over the proposal.
I therefore agree with the prime minister’s remarks that Kok’s quick comments were unnecessary.
That said, the jibes at Kok by Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh were uncalled for.
It was “unMadanic” and “unIslamic”. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not once resort to name calling.
Lessons must be learned from the above episode.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
