The Lies About Article 11: Why?
So why lie? And how would dishonestly associating Article 11 and its forums with the IFC effort help the cause of those who opposed the former? Why do the perpetrators of the lies oppose Article 11 and the forums? I will deal with these questions in detail later. For now, let me briefly state here why, in my view, these lies were resorted to so that, as I present the facts in the main part of this paper, you can evaluate those facts for yourselves and judge whether I am correct in attributing certain motives to Article 11’s opponents.
In a nutshell, the lies have been devised in order to impair civil society’s efforts to raise awareness about the ongoing “Islamisation” process in the country. The lies are being spread by those who seek to further this “Islamisation” process and who see Article 11’s activities as a threat to their agenda. Linking Article 11 with the IFC is their strategy to halt this latest effort aimed at questioning the “Islamisation” process. Let me elaborate.
For a long time, those pursuing an “Islamisation” process in this country had a “blank cheque” to do so. Laws passed, supposedly in furtherance of this process, were hardly scrutinised in the legislative assemblies. Non-Muslim legislators steered away from these proposed laws, thinking these were intra-Muslim issues. Muslim legislators, fearful of being castigated as anti-Islam if they challenged the appropriateness of such proposed laws in the context of our multi-racial, multi-religious, constitution-supreme way of life, offered little debate. Non-Muslim members of civil society who ventured to question laws and policies, formulated in the name of Islam, that were impinging on the non-Muslim communities were told that they ought not interfere in intra-Muslim affairs.
At some point in time, this started to change. When, precisely, I cannot say. Certainly by 2000 or thereabouts, even Muslims had begun to question and challenge this “Islamisation” process. These Muslims then came together with concerned non-Muslims, as a civil society that cut across the racial and religious divide, and began raising questions about the direction in which the “Islamisation” process was taking the country.
The IFC effort is, in a sense, the first concrete evidence of that coming together of civil society. This was an endeavour by Muslims and non-Muslims who saw the worth of establishing a statutory body to look into problems of a religious nature in this country.
You will see later how certain Muslim factions, concerned about the IFC initiative, falsely but effectively condemned it as an attack on Islam. Their plan to halt the IFC initiative was simple: get Muslims agitated in the belief that the IFC effort was in reality an attack on Islam and the government would be forced to put an end to it. The Steering Committee of the IFC initiative, through Malik Imtiaz, issued a statement to refute those allegations. Regrettably, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism & Sikhism (MCCBCHS) and its then-President, Harcharan Singh, who became the main target of the lies that were circulated portraying the IFC as anti-Islam, for reasons best known to them, never responded publicly to refute those lies, despite appeals from various parties to do so. In the result, those lies proved to be effective. The opponents of the IFC initiative had succeeded in creating the spectre of Islam being under attack by non-Muslims. The government gave in to pressure and the IFC effort was derailed in early 2005.
The Article 11 forums, in my view, represent the latest civil society effort to call attention to the increasing cause for concern with the direction that the “Islamisation” process in Malaysia appears to be heading. Details of the formation of the coalition and the background to the forums appear below. At the first forum in PJ in March 2006, an open letter to the government was launched. It represents all that the coalition and members of civil society who support Article 11 are concerned about, stand for and aspire to:
· that Malaysia shall not become a theocratic state;
· that the government and judiciary uphold the supremacy of the Federal Constitution;
· that governance is in accordance with the Federal Constitution and premised on the
universal values of all Malaysian peoples; and
· that the government recognise the proper position of the judiciary within the
Constitutional framework, as an independent and equal arm of government.
These aspirations are in fact no more than a plea by citizens that the Federal Constitution be upheld and given effect to.
Those who oppose the Article 11 coalition and the forums are the very same who favour that “Islamisation” process. Their process requires that Malaysia become a theocracy, that Syariah as contrived by them, and not the Federal Constitution, shall reign as supreme law and that the Syariah Courts shall one day become the ultimate arbiters of the law.
Their scheme, however, envisaged that this process would be gradual so as not to alarm civil society: put Syariah legislation in place but implement the laws piece-meal; consult, and get the approval of the National Fatwa Council before implementing important governmental policies, such as the free distribution of syringes and condoms to counter the Aids problem in the country; recitation of Qur’anic verses over the public address system every morning at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya; make the tudung compulsory for our uniformed personnel in certain circumstances; get religious enforcement officers to flex their muscle from time to time in public places, including at the business premises of non-Muslims; ban the sale of Malay translations of non-Muslim scriptures; outlaw the use of certain Arabic words by non-Muslims; accord the Syariah Courts a higher status than that provided in law; require that TV programmes conform to these “Islamist” mores and norms; assure non-Muslims that hudud will not apply to them until they see the goodness in it. The list goes on and on.
And at the same time, keep repeating over and over again, “Malaysia is an Islamic state”. Their strategy is to get the people thinking that it is a foregone conclusion that we live in an Islamic state, so that the psychological battle has been won.
Those in favour of the “Islamisation” process and, therefore, opposed to the Article 11 forums, could not openly oppose the aspirations outlined in Article 11’s open letter. To do so would immediately expose their ambitions to establish, in the long term, a theocracy.
Since they could not attack those stated aspirations directly, they elected to oppose the same indirectly. The plan, again, was simple: avoid dealing with the stated aspirations, as this would give rise to a public debate on the “Islamisation” process. Instead, spread lies that the Article 11 effort was a continuation of the IFC initiative. Since the IFC initiative had been falsely but effectively condemned as an anti-Islam pursuit, all that was needed was to agitate the Muslims again into believing that the Article 11 effort was a continuation of the IFC “anti-Islam” agenda. Linking the two initiatives in this manner would re-ignite the anti-IFC opposition and channel it towards Article 11, thus once again compelling the government to intervene to bring another civil society initiative to an end.
Hence the lies.
Let me now take you to the truth. I shall:
i) briefly outline the circumstances that led to the formation of the Article 11 coalition;
ii) detail the events and state of affairs that motivated the Article 11 forums and the matters raised by speakers at the forums; and
iii) expose the lies about the IFC effort, spread principally by the Allied Co-ordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN).
To Muslims who will have occasion to judge whether what I assert here is the truth, please remember God’s exhortation to do justice and His condemnation of the rejecters of the truth.
"God commands you to render back your trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between men, that you judge with justice. Verily how excellent is the teaching which He gives to you! For God is He Who hears and sees all things."- Surah 4 verse 58 of the Holy Qur'an.
“Ah, woe that day the rejecters of the truth” – Surah 77 verses 15, 19, 24, 28, 34, 37, 40, 45, 47, 49 of the Holy Qur'an.
Back to: The Lies About Article 11: What lies?
Next Link - Formation of Article 11