Psychology defines that every human being needs a \’personal space\’ which one guards very specifically and only allows trusted people and systems to violate. Within this internal private personal space are the domains of personal conscience and personal belief, or faith which help define and refine the nature of human dignity and destiny.

While the above two domains are internal to a person, the public space around the person is also considered personal private space, although in the public realm. When I was in the Royal Military College, I was taught that, while on the parade square, what was inside the beret was considered my personal hair but what was outside the beret belonged to the army and they can do what they wanted with it, that is, while I remained within army jurisdiction. The only exception was my Punjabi friends who were allowed to wear their turbans in lieu of the beret, as their hair and the turban were part of their belief system.

This past week, the inspector-general of police (IGP) appears to have single-handedly violated the cabinet decision by decreeing his personal religious belief as public law instructing female police personnel to wear the tudung (head-scarf) through a directive.

When the Islamic International University made compulsory the wearing of headscarves for their graduation ceremony and the matter became public knowledge, the cabinet then ruled that university students of non-Muslim heritage can choose to do otherwise, even though it was compulsory for Muslim women.

I understand that such compulsion in dressing is not even encouraged in Islam, as already clarified by the deputy minister of education in the case of \”school children being forced to wear the head-scarf.\” In fact, the Ministry of Education has now warned that action can be taken against principals for violating this rule based on their personal interpretations of this dress code.

Where is the line?

\"\"

Now, what really is the cabinet ruling and what are the core principles being used for such decision-making? Can the IGP willingly and knowingly violate the cabinet directive, when principals and vice-chancellors are expected to obey them?

Moreover, where then does one draw the line between \’the room for personal conscience\’, and requirements of faith or culture, in favor of \’the discipline of uniformity?\’ In biblical scriptures it is recorded of Daniel and his three friends that they sought special permission to refrain from eating food of the Babylonians, because it was a matter of their personal conscience? The world famous boxer, Mohamed Ali refused to go the war in Vietnam as a matter of personal conscience regarding the matter of killing another.

At the Nuremberg Trials, the right hand man of Hitler, Adolf Eichmann argued that he was \’only following orders\’ when he killed the Jews, and the court found him guilty of manslaughter. On certain universal rights and wrongs, the court argued, even military orders should not be followed.

Personal conscience is a very important matter in our civilised world with our universal and global set of values. Under the Human Rights Declaration, no nation is really free to violate the personal beliefs and conscience of any human being.

My question therefore to the IGP is whether this \’uniform rule\’ violates the freedom of personal conscience of the public service personnel under his charge and especially those of the non-Muslims and equally those of the Muslim women who can strictly also choose not to wear the scarf?

Remember the constitution

\"\"

I hope the IGP remembers that we are a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, and the police force are guardians of our judicio-legal system. Our constitution declares unto herself, that the constitution of the federation is the supreme law of this country, and any other law which is against the constitution is null and void.

Any public servant is appointed by one of the Public Services Commissions, which are given authority by parliament, appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong and paid directly from the Privy Purse. How then can the IGP \’impose\’ one religious interpretation of Islamic law and apply it towards the public space of private conscience when Islamic laws are only meant for the private space of life of Muslims?

And, in case our newly appointed minister of law is aggravated by my question, I agree with the column by Param Cumaraswamy, that sedition relates only to matters specifically mentioned and protected by the constitution in a privileged way, and has nothing to do with any topic that some people fancy are \’seditious\’. I suppose both the minister and the IGP must be subject to the same constitution, as is the cabinet and the judiciary.

In my previous columns, I had argued that \’back-door Islamisation\’ has been happening for a long time in the public service and needs to be arrested by the silent majority; by standing up and speaking up. Here is another specific case of back-door Islamisation, but rather disappointingly this appears to be done with the \’private approval\’ of the PM. If the cabinet also agrees with this new compulsion by the IGP then it may already even become front-door Islamisation since a previous cabinet has already ruled otherwise on the same matter.

Where does it stop?

I would therefore like to know from constitutional lawyers whether Article 3 may have been violated by the IGP, inadvertently. And, before \’the keris is waved\’ let me patiently remind our brother colleagues of the historical social contract; that while politicians are free to make their personal views known in public, they need to be aware that when they speak as the ministers of the cabinet, on any matter of public discourse, they do not have personal privileges but should be able to defend them in the cabinet (the executive) and in the parliament (the legislature) without name-calling or any \’uncivil and unethical behavior\’.

\"\"

Unlike this writer who is only a private member of civil society, they are members of cabinet and thus part of the executive of the government of Malaysia and therefore publicly accountable!

Finally, back to the core issue being raised by this writer in this article; at which point does uniform discipline according to the IGP cross the line and move away from being within the realms of \’personal conscience\’ and \’personal preference\’ and move into the realm of the IGP\’s private religious interpretation? Are we then prepared to make all culture a matter of religious interpretation (of the majority) or those in power?

And while the constitution protects Malay culture, tradition and privileges, surely it is not intended for any interpretive bias of Islamic or Arabic dress code in the public space, as our courts have already ruled. Is this not against the constitution of the federation? Is not our constitution already a matter of a historical social contract, which cannot be revised and reinterpreted as we feel? And, in the specific cases of Sabah and Sarawak, is not the federal constitution even a matter of a \’legal contract moderated between states\’ by the Cobalt Commission?

My honest fear is the following: today, it is police discipline and tomorrow it is on other personal piety issues, and the next day it will be all other public morality issues, like even holding hands in public.

Where then does culture stop and personal faith start? Form becomes substance. Let us tread very carefully lest we dis-configure our only social contract and thereby our \’document of destiny\’, as Prof Shad Saleem Farouqi calls it.