Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Abdullah Mohd Zin was reported in Star to have said that the cabinet had, at two meetings on Oct 18 and Nov 1, 2006, decided that “four words could not be used by non-Muslim communities in Malaysia”.

The Sun in its report stated that a similar decision had been made by the cabinet on July 30, 2002 but the “policy had been enforced since December 1986”. And, that the word ‘Allah’ was one of the taboo words.

Deputy Internal Security Minister Mohd Johari Baharum gave a similar reason for non-renewal of the publishing licence of the Herald , which had used the word in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

Official thinking is that use of the word would be “confusing to Muslims” because the word is a unique and specific reference to the Muslim God. However, like the Malay Bible which also uses the word ‘Allah’, the newsletter is only distributed to Catholics and Christians.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Bernard Dompok, who has been assigned a ‘private’ responsibility to speak for the Catholic community, said Christian Malaysians who use Malay in their worship have a right to continue using the word. He was earlier reported to have intervened with the premier in getting the Herald printing license approved and without any conditions being attached. I believe the approval letter was published in the latest issue.

This raises questions about the ‘cabinet policy’ and if it is known to all members. Did Abdullah Mohd Zin table a cabinet paper in relation to use of ‘taboo’ words? If not, this would rate as a ‘backdoor’ cabinet policy and at best, a note to the cabinet. Such ‘notes’ are often used to make cabinet decisions.

Allow me to clarify the basis of a proper cabinet policy paper and decision. Under our inherited British system of primus inter pares (the first among equals) the cabinet requires an originating minister to table a full cabinet policy paper on a subject under his or her jurisdiction.

This defines the problem or issue, discusses the alternatives, reviews the costs and implications of the decision, and then makes a full and considered recommendation for a consensus decision by the full cabinet.

The draft must first be circulated among all relevant ministers for written comments or rebuttals. Even if one minister seriously objects, the paper cannot be approved without amendment. All cabinet decisions require full consensus – unless, of course, our consensus style of governance has been drastically changed.

\"\"

don’t understand how the Abdullah cabinet works. The PM, at the urging of a minister in his own department and someone who represents all Catholics, had agreed to issuance of the permit for the Herald without conditions. But the next day, another minister from the same department vetoes the absence of conditions and states that the cabinet had decided otherwise some time ago.

Didn’t Dompok and the premier know about such a decision, if indeed there was one? And if it exists, wouldn’t two other ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department who represent the Christian community and who are from Sabah, have objected to it?

Many people in Sabah and Sarawak have been Christians for more than 50 years. There are factual records and many books about the Christianisation of Sabah and Sarawak since colonial times. In the intervening years, the word ‘Allah’ has been used by the Iban, Kelabit and Kadhazan based on the Malay/Indonesian language.

How can we now say that they cannot worship their God in their heart language, just because they have used a pre-Islamic Arabic word for God; which now the Peninsular Malays want to make a privatised intellectual property of their own? Do the cabinet-members really know what they are saying?

No legal jurisdiction

Surely we can be more civilised about all this. I personally would not be at a loss if both the words ‘Allah’ and ‘Tuhan’ are banned, since my language of heart worship is still English and not even Malayalam, my mother tongue, or Malay my acquired language.

But then, speaking for my brothers and sisters from Sabah and Sarawak, how can we deny them their right to worship and practise their faith within their own heart language as guaranteed by both Articles 11 and 3 of the Federal Constitution?

To add fuel to complex controversy between these Abrahamic faiths, now the Sikhs say that they too have been using the word ‘Allah’ for their worship and that it has been in their Holy Book since time immemorial. It is thus becoming obvious that this pre-Abrahamic word is no longer an Arabic word. It has become universalised.

\"\"

How can then we, merely as one nation state in the larger community of the United Nations, unilaterally reverse faith practices by a mere cabinet decree? In any case, cabinet decisions have a limited jurisdiction, even within the context of the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and the 50-year-old Federation of Malaysia.

Our apparent arbitrary decision, which disregards international norms, could potentially land us in some international court for denial of basic human rights on the freedoms and right of worship.

It appears that interpretation of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the Executive – and its leadership under Umno speaks only for a Malay worldview of life.

In any good system of democratic governance with a supreme constitution, all three branches of administration are guided by the Rule of Law principle. Therefore, the only legitimate authority which has the right and jurisdiction of interpretation of the real intention of the framers of the constitution is the Federal Court.

I hear that the issue is not a new one for Catholics – it has been a point of contention since the 1980s. The administrative powers have always, and at the last minute, allowed a concession to avoid the matter being taken to court.

To my mind and heart, the only way to seek redress for erroneous interpretation is via the courts. Articles 11 and 3 of the constitution cover the freedom of choice of religion and the right of practice of non-Muslim faiths in Malaysia. The cabinet has no legal jurisdiction to abrogate a right fully guaranteed by the constitution.

The so-called cabinet policy should be reviewed by all non-Muslim ministers after consulting their respective religious constituencies before a final decision is made. If this matter is not handled well, the issue may become the unifying point again for non-Muslim communities, as happened among Hindus during the Hindraf rally last November.

Perhaps the voice of civil society should be louder on such issues. The Interfaith Commission proposed by the Article 11 coalition was rejected, but the grouping may have to argue for the rights of non-mainstream communities ahead of the general election.

The cabinet has to stop being paternalistic or playing with fire on matters related to faith. It is time for the cabinet to allow Malaysians to grow up in their own faith without condescension. Faith is a personal matter and should not be reduced to matters of practice that are dictated by edict. May God have mercy on Malaysia!