For those who did not know about this issue, or have only been educated about this issue since The Herald court case decision, I hope my brief summary will highlight this issue of popular debate now, within our national political and religious life.

This ‘Allah’ case is now up for review by the Federal Court, after the High Court decision and the successful appeal by the government. My prayer is that the Federal Court will have a full bench as per Karpal Singh’s appeal, but even more importantly, that the Chief Judge of the Borneo states will sit on the enlarged bench, and there will be at least one Christian judge included explicitly on the bench.

This Federal Court decision will define the modern history and destiny of multi-ethnic Malaysia; with anger and ignorance on both sides.

There are some facts about the ‘Allah’ word, which cannot be denied by any of us. These historical facts are:

  • ‘Allah’ is a pre-Arabic, pre-Abrahamic religious word;
  • ‘Allah’ became an Arabic name for the one true Lord God and was made popular, in the Arabic form, as the Islamic name for God. All Arabic Abrahamic faiths use this word widely until today without an issue;
  • Indigenous Sabahans and Sarawakians have used this word for God in their languages since before they joined to form Malaysia;
  • All other Muslim-majority nations have no problem with this word being used by Christians in Arabic or any other language;
  • The Sikh Holy Book also has used this word for God from the beginning; and
  • The Malay world’s insistence on ‘Malaysianisation’ of this word is reflection of the ‘ katak dibawah tempurung ’ syndrome.

Federal government’s resolution

This matter of the use of ‘Allah’ by Christians worshipping in Bahasa Malaysia has been a serious issue since the formation of Malaysia in 1963. It was thus preceded and addressed by the 18 and 20 point agreements by the indigenous leaders of both Sabah and Sarawak.  

Most recently, the federal government leadership even brokered a deal with the Sarawakian Christian leadership, as mediated by Senator Idris Jala. It was called the 10-point solution and resolution. It was not a formal contract but more importantly, on the basis of that agreement and assurance, the Sarawak state elections were held and won by the Barisan Nasional. That deal had nothing to do explicitly with The Herald case, as far as I know.

To lie is not to tell the whole truth. My policy question to the government of Malaysia is: did or did not the cabinet agree to the negotiation and settlement of the 10-point solution? If it did, under what authority did they do it; if not the cabinet, which is executive government? (1) And, if they did, is this not part and parcel of federal executive public policy now?

If that is so, are not the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) officers and anyone else, with the explicit exception of Sabah and Sarawak, involved in making contrary statements, wrong? This point was also made recently by the National Unity Consultative Council, Suhakam and the UN, in various ways. Are those naysayers then not violators of federal public policy?  

Was not the Agong (head of the Conference of Rulers) consulted or briefed on this matter at his cabinet weekly briefing; after the solution was rendered? How then can individual sultans be issuing their own interpretive rules and edicts for state-level enforcement; as if it is an obvious reversal of requisite policy authority of the conference, by default?  

Are our individual Malay states then independent of our federal system of parliamentary democratic governance with a defined constitutional monarch?

Are politicians then liars?

There is a saying that a politician’s words are only good at the moment of issue? But, that is not what we consider credible leadership, is it? Is not credibility linked to defining this most important character trait in leadership of all organisations?

Leadership always requires moral authority to speak the truth about the current problems facing the nation and then to define the requisite direction for shaping the future, especially for the followers. Please watch the Mandela movie and learn what true leadership is.  

Given also that our PM is chief executive and primus inter pares of the federal government, and he negotiated the 10-point resolution through personal representatives, the government cannot now absolve itself of full and total responsibility for this agreement.  

If the agreement is violated, or is not honoured, it is serious breach of trust and faith established with the specific Christian organisations involved; and therefore this break point has serious implications with any future trust.

A back of the envelope calculation shows there are today about three million Christians in Malaysia today. If there is an average Christian family of four, it means there are about roughly 700,000 adult voters. Again if you add more children above 21 who can vote, maybe there are about 800,000-900,000 Christian voters.  

I think the federal government cannot afford to ignore this large group of voting Malaysians, simply for the sake of Umno politics of a kind of internal leadership struggle.

As these Umno conservatives (or ex-PAS ones) play politics with this issue of race and religion, I think it is time for the PM, as chairperson and prime minister of all Malaysians, to put a stop to this issue. That will clearly define his leadership or lack thereof. May God help us with moral leadership.

(1)  Regardless of the Rais Yatim argument in his doctoral thesis; Malaysia follows the British Parliamentary model of the prime minister as “primus inter pares”.