The International Herald Tribune: Lina Joy Case - Bad Decision for Malaysia

Read here full article by Philip Bowring in International Herald Tribune

Quote:

"...The ruling will be seen in most of the rest of the world as an example of Muslim arrogance, intolerance and obscurantism, which are particularly out of place in a country where more than 40 percent of the population is not Muslim.

Are Malays in Malaysia (unlike Indonesia) INCAPABLE of making their own decisions on religion?

The ruling is as much about the politics of race as it is about religion.

The ruling will be seen in most of the rest of the world as an example of Muslim arrogance, intolerance and obscurantism, which are particularly out of place in a country where more than 40 percent of the population is not Muslim.
-Philip Bowring

Excerpts: Read here for more

Two decisions on the same day on Wednesday have delivered huge to blows to liberal, plural democracy in Thailand and Malaysia, two relatively prospering and open Southeast Asian societies.

Both decisions have been given the appearance of being judicial, but both are highly political and represent efforts by entrenched interests to maintain political control.

The dissolution of Thai Rak Thai, the party of Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed as prime minister of Thailand by a coup last September, has caught more headlines. But given the volatility of Thai politics, this may prove less enduring than a decision in Malaysia to deny a woman the right to convert from Islam to another religion.

The highest court in Malaysia ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Muslim Shariah courts, even though the Malaysian Constitution, which the civil courts are supposed to uphold, guarantees freedom of religion.

The Shariah courts have been adamant that "apostasy" cannot be allowed; Muslims CANNOT become non-Muslims.

The ruling will be seen in most of the rest of the world as an example of Muslim arrogance, intolerance and obscurantism, which are particularly out of place in a country where more than 40 percent of the population is not Muslim (and non-Muslims are a majority in some states).

But the ruling is as much about the politics of race as it is about religion.

The Malay elite is less noted for piety than for its determination to cling on to the economic and political privileges it has awarded itself through the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the party that has dominated the political process since independence 50 years ago.

All Malays are deemed to be Muslims; thus religion has become a means of reinforcing the racial basis of politics.

The elite will not disavow it, partly to protect the privileges and partly to avoid being outflanked among Malay voters at election time by the more fundamentalist Parti Islam.

In Wednesday's ruling, the chief justice (Tun Ahmad Fairuz) argued that one could NOT leave a religion "at whim," suggesting that it was a function of birth more than belief.

By implication, he raised this question:

Are Malays in Malaysia (unlike Indonesia) incapable of making their own decisions on religion?

The court (with the one non-Muslim judge dissenting) appeared to forget that non-Muslims who wish to marry Malays must convert to Islam. In short, the court has in effect undermined Malaysian pluralism for the sake of UMNO's political expediency.

For both Malaysia and Thailand, the rulings on Wednesday represent major setbacks in their efforts to become fully developed societies in which pluralism is enshrined in the conduct of institutions.
-Philip Bowring