I write this piece firstly as a constitutional Malaysian who appreciates the primacy and the role of rule of law in the life of this great nation. I also write this piece as someone who has come to respect and admire our prime minister for his servant leadership model, philosophy and style of \”work with me and not for me.\”

Nonetheless, I am personally very disappointed with the \”misunderstanding of the PM\” to the private memorandum minority religious rights handed to him by the nine non-Muslim ministers. To me, it appears inconsistent with his \”collegial and collected style.\”

I wonder why he is so perturbed. All the same, my prayer for him is that he will continue to pursue the truth in love, grace and hope consistent with his leadership style for this nation.

I have therefore some questions (five here and the remainder for my next column) for consideration of the PM as he contemplates providing leadership on this issue. My questions are in no specific order of priority:

1. Did we not all take the oath to uphold and protect the same Constitution? How then can cabinet ministers – who are representatives of different interests groups – uphold their integrity on this promise if they cannot speak up on key and related issues?

I hope we all remember that it is the same constitution we all promised to uphold when in public office, and within the framework of our Rukun Negara principles. This taking of the oath includes all the opposition leaders and senior public officials as well. After all there is only one nation, one flag and one constitution of the federation. That Malaysian constitution defines and frames the original social contract which brought a healthy and negotiated independence to this nation. Enshrined within it are the aspirations of all our founding fathers that deliberated and concluded the political independence of this nation. That constitution must remain our primary and only social contract. It constitutes and defines our federal civil law structure; there is nothing more to debate, argue, or deny about this.

2. What is the real issue facing the nation in the \”late Moorthy\” case? The memorandum only sought to \”collate issues already discussed in cabinet\” according to some of the ministers. So, why is there this negative perception of their views after nearly 50 years of Barisan Nasional governance?

Really, what has become murky and unclear over the last month is how matters of personal faith are resolved within a marriage context when one party may now belong to a different faith- group. This was the unresolved issue in the late Moorthy case, because his conversion to Islam was apparently kept a secret even from his own wife.

For a High Court judge to then interpret and rule that the wife has no recourse to legal remedies under the civil laws of the nation, denies all fundamental rights of that citizen of Malaysia (especially as a wife). I believe that the Islamic Family Law controversy has a similar issue of how the rights of women spouses are protected or not in the proposed new bill.

Giving their input

It is therefore not merely an issue of the conversion of Moorthy or matters only related to the religion of Islam and its jurisdiction under Syariah law. To non-Muslims, there is no contention on that issue, I believe. His conversion to Islam was Moorthy\’s basic human right equally protected under the constitution. Equally important are the human right of his wife and mother of his children to legal recourse to resolve her the matter and protect her civil liberties.

The real issue is all about the rule of law principle in Malaysia. Let us not then turn a blind eye to what is really at stake here. That is why all the heads of all non-Muslim parties in the cabinet signed the memorandum. It was their forefathers who helped draft and frame the same constitution and accommodations (as in the case of Sabah and Sarawak) whose supremacy they now seek to uphold.

3. Is the cabinet a correct framework for a dialogue on constitution-related rights and inter-faith issues? What about the role of the judiciary and Parliament on the constitutional rights issues? The constitution belongs to all Malaysians and its governance requires the executive, judiciary and the legislature acting in concert.

\"\"

That the ministers did not table a cabinet paper on the issue is fully understandable to me as a student of the principles of constitutional parliamentary democracy in Malaysia. It is not within their jurisdiction to do so simply as cabinet ministers, unless they table the actual proposed amendments when the matter comes before the cabinet, as a sub-coalition within the government.

I believe that they handed over a memorandum on the issue to our beloved Pak Lah, as prime minister of the country, because he is the head of the government; and as he has declared that he is the PM of all Malaysians. The same Malaysians who gave him the 90 percent majority.

Neither did they hand their memorandum to the King, which would have been a real affront. Their coalitional action symbolically represents all non-Muslim parties and peoples of Malaysia. After all, they are our highest representatives in Parliament. I therefore agree with International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz\’s gracious perspective on the matte in that they were simply giving their inputs on the very important subject, within the context of the multi-racial governance of this nation. The real point which is hard for many to digest is that this core issue transcends even the so-called opinions of the current BN government of the day.

Their submission includes the views, aspirations and considerations of all our past leaders and representatives who have worked together to seek this \”independence\” within our historical context. At it is core, this issue defines who we are as a people of this nation that we love and call as Malaysia. It may also express the views of all non-Muslim groups regarding how all parties understand and appreciate the original social contract as embodied in that historical moment of independence and all matters related to the then constitution. As someone said recently, \”history cannot be rewritten through the back door.\”

To our non-Muslim leaders who have signed the memorandum I say, well done for at least speaking for all peace-loving citizens over the \”non-peaceful way\” the late Moorthy case was handled and the non-constitutional interpretation of the High Court judge.

And consequently, the resultant sudden spread of fear and concern over this most serious incident or accident. To minister Bernard Dompok, I salute you for not compromising on your views and for maintaining the stand of your party delegates on this matter of freedom of religion. It is even more your right as a bumiputera member of the coalition and as a 42 year-old member of the federation of Malaysia.

In glass houses

4. Sir, are you prime minister of Malaysia first and head of Umno only second?

I think we should all be level-headed about this issue of religious freedom, as the PM himself has said. True leadership also always defines the followers. Mr Prime Minister, your cabinet colleagues and coalition party representatives are simply telling you that this matter is of utmost importance to them and to their multiracial members and followers.

But, the issue also involves non-BN constituents. Maybe the fact that BN has not already had an emergency meeting to discuss this issue is an equally loud statement about the frailty within the coalition on such a serious and sensitive issue. The issue involves an inter-faith commission type of dialogue which is now an omission, by your own unilateral declaration.

Therefore, let us not read more into the handing over of the memorandum other than (as Rafidah put it) that \”they were simply giving their serious and sincere inputs.\” The contrarian views as reflected in the statements of both the deputy prime minister and Minister in the Prime Minister\’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz are merely emotional and Umno-linked reactions. That is their right.

After all, I believe Umno Youth were part of the PAS-led and university-linked demonstration regarding this issue at the Masjid Negara last Friday. The non-Muslim interfaith group which held a vigil on behalf of late Moorthy\’s wife also involved many non-partisan members and spokespersons. Nevertheless, all of us maybe need to learn that we cannot throw stones when living in glass houses.

\"\"

Nobody should campaign for a cause that he does not believe in, and especially so Nazri who is charged with upholding and rebuilding the dignity and honour of our Parliament, our legislature. Dear minister, please do not play to the gallery on constitutional matters. After all, you are a lawyer and should know better. On these constitutional matters, all the politicians are trying to represent all our different faith groups based on various theological considerations and teachings. For all faith groups, there may be some issues on which there cannot be any compromises. We all know that.

Therefore, if one does not believe in the issue one has spoken for, maybe one should not speak so loudly on such faith matters. Others who have conviction have spoken and will continue to speak. Our nine ministers were speaking for us in representing our interfaith issues and the role of our Constitution which guarantees religious freedom. They are not theologians but political representatives; answerable also to all our monks, priests, pastors and elders who teach and speak on these issues.

Ultimate framework

5. What then, sir, is the hierarchy of legal jurisprudence in such a constitutional democracy we call the Federation of Malaysia? Even \’independence day\’ is are differently recognised by those in the Peninsular and our brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak. The rights and privileges of Sabah and Sarawak are also different on some issues. Can we therefore be sensitive to some of the specific non-Muslim bumiputera issues?

To me as a layman, the sole protectors of the religion of Islam in the Federation of Malaysia are the sultans and the Council of Malay Rulers outside of the explicit recognition of the reserved right by the Constitution and therefore its status as \”the religion\” of the nation.

The Syariah laws that are enacted by the constituent states of the Federation help deliver the explicit meaning and certainly allow interpretation of these laws and related values within the protected and preserved context of Islam. But surely the jurisdiction and protection of the constitutional human rights of all citizens cannot be interpreted within the jurisdictional limits of these sub-jurisdictional and state-enacted laws. That is what the PAS spiritual leader has suggested because that is their worldview.

\"\"

But the ultimate framework for the interpretation of rights and remedies available to all Malaysians must always remain within the federal constitution. That concern, to me, explains this historic, first time ever event of such a sub-coalition forming within the BN itself.

Let us not therefore miss the woods for the trees. Let us appreciate and try to understand what the genuine fears are what is really at stake from the perspective of other (non-Muslim and bumiputera) Malaysians. The PM must always remain \”primus inter pares\” within the cabinet or the prime among equals in our system of governance. They are all equal representatives of the cares and concerns of different groups in Malaysia.

In submitting their views outside the context of the cabinet, they are maybe developing or creating a new framework for a new dialogue which may be necessary and needed arising from the unfortunate incident or accident mentioned above. I sincerely hope and pray that we can all rise to the occasion and not merely fall victim to our own very human limitations or persuasions. God bless Malaysia and I will pray for the cabinet to show some wisdom on the core issues this Wednesday.