\"\"

Premised upon my belief that the two judges in the M Indira Gandhi judgment were absolutely wrong in their ‘Appeals Court majority ruling’; many of us waited to read the dissenting judgment by the other learned Judge.

He also holds a Doctorate in Islamic Studies from Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) Malaysia. To me, as my Professor of Islamic Studies SH Nasr puts it; truth is never only what is said or stated but is also defined by what is not said. So, I focus on what was said by the other Judge at the Appeal Court of Malaysia.

Therefore, allow me to use this column to express my interpretation of the dissenting judgment in an attempt to simplify some governance basics for ordinary but smart Malaysians.

Most Malaysians are too lazy to think seriously about too many difficult questions. Why else would one younger sibling always say: “Ravi, I cannot understand what you write.” And my standard reply used to be; “It was not meant for you, as you do not subscribe to Malaysiakini .”

Fourth arm argument

John A Rohr was an American Professor Emeritus at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech . Rohr is particularly known as a leading scholar of the US constitution in relationship to civil servants and public administration.

One of Rohr’s arguments is that the constitution pervades American society and thus he wrote: ‘To Run a Constitution: The legitimacy of an Administrative State’ wherein he framed the original fourth arm of governance argument. I have consistently made the same argument in the past through my columns that the public service and not the media is that Fourth Estate.

I was therefore positively surprised and excited by Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s fourth arm of governance argument, as codified through his judgment. But interestingly, he also made extended that argument to include the role of sultans and governors, or even possibly, the operation as the Conference of Rulers, as “advisers to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.”

His argument was not just in their personal and individual capacities as heads of states (nine of them) and as defenders of state religion which is Islam through state enactments, but also in their roles for good governance of the Federation of Malaysia.

Islam was never designed to be the official religion of the Federation of Malaysia, as emphasised and repeated more than a hundred times by the late Professor Ahmad Ibrahim in my constitutional law class. It is only the religion of the federation. It is therefore, at the same time, the religion of the states of the Federation of Malaya; including the Federal Territories, Malacca, and Penang through the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It is silent on who is head of Islam in Sabah and Sarawak as this was never an issue of contention.

Within two-thirds of the Federation of Malaysia; it cannot become their state religion as per the original Malaysia Agreement. They i.e. the two states cannot be reduced in the same way as ordinary states of the Federation of Malaya.

My logic is very simple: they did never have a sultan, unlike Brunei and every other such state, who were all part and parcel of the British Commonwealth. Brunei is now self-declared as an Islamic State but the sultan and family are defined as above those laws.

Consequential implications of dissenting judgment

Justice Hamid Sultan developed a complete treatise to make his full argument. His full and complete argument is that we should not be a parliamentary democracy like that of the Westminster tradition but instead are a constitutional democracy like that of the United States of America and the Union of India with a written and documented federal constitution.

What then are the full implications of this Hamid doctrine? Let me try to state one and make my case why even the older Apandi Ali doctrine can now be thoroughly reviewed and then dismissed as false and unacceptable. I will quote one case example of the Turkish writer, Mustafa Akyol of Hurriet Daily News already wrote on Nov 19, 2013:

“Earlier this week, a Malaysian court gave a bizarre decision: A Catholic newspaper in that country, named the Herald , would not be allowed to use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. The court’s logic was that when Christians pray to ‘Allah’, Muslims get ‘confused’. Chief judge Mohamed Apandi Ali made an even more revealing statement, noting, “The propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam is the biggest threat to Malaysia’s Muslims.”

“Apparently the universal usage term of ‘Allah’ was seen as a vehicle for that dangerous ‘propagation’.

“Now, as a fellow Muslim, I will be honest to the Malaysians who have given this verdict or those who support it: This is one of the most illogical, insensible and childish decisions I have heard in my life. It is sheer nonsense.”

The Apandi doctrine

The Apandi doctrine, as labelled so by Malaysian Christians, has been debated within Christian congregational discourse about the false and fallacious argument that ‘Allah is a Malay word’ and therefore cannot be used in Malay translations. Like the Turkish Muslim argues above, I too have argued at length in my book, ‘Alamak: All in God’s Name!’ that Allah is the pre-Islamic and pre-Arabic word for God.

In fact, the only proof needed quite simply for rational Malaysians are these two questions which they can answer for themselves:

What is the name of the Prophet of Islam and what is his father’s name? If his father’s name means Son of Allah; then the name and concept of ‘Allah’ existed in Arabic before Islam, right?

Therefore, Allah cannot be merely an Arabic or Post Islamic personal name for God Almighty; which evolved and spread to our geography only after the passing of the Prophet of Islam.

Consequently also, as argued by Justice Hamid Sultan, there is only one supreme legality principle in Malaysia for social-political resolutions; it is called the federal constitution of the Malaysia; which is not merely a simplistic application or interpretation of the logic of the original framing of the constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

Malaysian way forward

When all rationality broke down in Malaysia after the 1969 riots, and an emergency had to be declared to establish peace and cordiality of the different ethnicities and their conflicting demands; through the first National Consultative Council ever formed, we agreed to a comprehensive compromise and resolution as our Malaysian philosophy and way forward.

It was called the Rukunegara, but what was even more brilliant about that resolution was not just the five principles but rather the preamble with which I now conclude:

Whereas our country Malaysia nurtures the ambitions of achieving a more perfect unity amongst the whole of her society; preserving a democratic way of life; creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner; guaranteeing a liberal approach towards her rich and varied cultural traditions; and building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology.

Can someone explain to me why this cannot be the preamble included into our federal constitution of Malaysia to stop and reduce all the small bickering about personal values and interpretation of core matters?