New York Times Says the Allah Issue is UMNO-MALAY Government Provocation

(Image courtesy of Mob's Crib blog)

Quote

"...A government dominated by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) is using spurious religious/linguistic arguments to shore up its support among a majority Malay electorate, which has been fed for years with preferences and privileges.

Meanwhile, non-Malay money and talent exits the country.

Once a major recipient of foreign capital, Malaysia is now a source of flight capital.

UMNO cannot claim to be a party of the pious.

Half a century in power has turned it into a vast patronage machine that enriches the Malay elite, providing support for luxurious lifestyles. Its insistence that all Malays are Muslims (and cannot convert) is an attempt to give religious backing to the message of Malay racial preference.

That is barely in accord with the universalist notions of global Islam but keeps the loyalty of many Malays otherwise resentful of growing income gaps.

Even Malaysia’s strictly Islamist opposition party, Parti Islam (PAS), agrees that all Abrahamic faiths are entitled to use the word Allah.

But such facts are of little relevance to UMNO politicians determined to drum up any issue that can be used to show their commitment to defending Malay and Muslim privileges.

Last year it was Hindus who were the target of Malay provocation.

In short, the episode is sad commentary on a nation whose mix of races, its fine infrastructure and wealth of resources has held such promise. If only there really were One Malaysia..."
-Philip Bowring
New York Times

MALAY PROVOCATION

by Philip Bowring

Read here for more in New York Times

One ought to be able to laugh at the absurdity of it. But the message is one of ignorance, religious and racial prejudice and political opportunism.

Last week, the Malaysian government declared that Christians in one part of the country could use “Allah” as the word for God when speaking Malay, but that those in most of the country could not.

This is the same government that is currently running a public relations campaign called One Malaysia emphasizing the common identity of the nation’s racial and religious mix.

In reality, a government dominated by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) is using spurious religious/linguistic arguments to shore up its support among a majority MALAY electorate, which has been fed for years with preferences and privileges.

Meanwhile, NON-Malay money and talent exits the country.

The government had earlier tried to stop the use of the word Allah by all Christians. This was successfully challenged in the High Court.

But instead of letting the matter rest, the government declined to back down, setting the scene for the fire bombing of churches. While these could not be laid directly at the door of UMNO, hotheads in the party may well have taken their cue from what non-Muslims see as a deliberate attempt to stir up ethnic/religious issues for political gain.

Last year it was Hindus who were the target of Malay provocation.

UMNO political calculation demands that the organization sticks to its demands about the use of the word Allah in peninsular Malaysia, where all Malays are deemed Muslims and where Christians are ethnic Chinese or Indian, but not in the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak where there are large communities of Malay-speaking Christians. The UMNO-led coalition needs the support of the multi-ethnic parties in those states.

The word Allah has always been used without Muslim objection by Christians in the Arab world, as well as those in Malay-speaking Indonesia, where there are 10 times as many Muslims as in Malaysia. The word is itself derived from pre-Islamic Semitic language roots.

Even Malaysia’s strictly Islamist opposition party, Parti Islam (PAS), agrees that all Abrahamic faiths are entitled to use the word Allah.

But such facts are of little relevance to UMNO politicians determined to drum up any issue that can be used to show their commitment to defending Malay and Muslim privileges and thus retain the support of a Malay majority against the appeal both of PAS and the multi-ethnic Keadilan party of the former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

UMNO cannot claim to be a party of the pious. Half a century in power has turned it into a vast patronage machine that enriches the Malay elite, providing support for luxurious lifestyles. Its insistence that all Malays are Muslims (and cannot convert) is an attempt to give religious backing to the message of Malay racial preference.

That is barely in accord with the universalist notions of global Islam but keeps the loyalty of many Malays otherwise resentful of growing income gaps.

However, the racial and religious divides among the opposition still make an UMNO-led government seem a better choice than the alternatives — most likely ones in which the fundamentalism of PAS would replace the opportunism of UMNO. So despite the deterioration of communal relations in peninsular Malaysia, no major changes are in sight.

This carries two main dangers.

The first is the continuing large scale exodus of capital and of talented non-Malays.

Five years of generally good prices for its main commodity exports, oil, gas and palm oil, have delivered huge trade surpluses and a current account surplus of more than 10 percent of gross domestic product. But economic growth has been slow due to very weak private investment, only partly offset by large government deficit spending.

Once a major recipient of foreign capital, Malaysia is now a source of flight capital. This is only sustainable while commodity prices remain at double levels of five years ago and three times those in 2002.

A longer term danger, at least as perceived by some leading Malays, such as the former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh, is that a combination of religious intolerance and resentment of federal exploitation of their natural resources will generate secessionism in the Borneo states.

They joined Malaysia in 1963 without much enthusiasm but as the best option open to them as the British withdrew from empire. They do not want their traditions of racial and religious diversity to be poisoned by peninsular prejudices. Their separate treatment on the Allah issue will have some immediate benefits for Kuala Lumpur, but can only underscore just how different they are.

In short, the episode is sad commentary on a nation whose mix of races, its fine infrastructure and wealth of resources has held such promise.

If only there really were One Malaysia.

RELATED ARTICLES:



From Al-Jazeera Website

Malaysia Still Dodging the Issue

by

Teymoor Nabili

Read here for more

Malaysia's Home Ministry held a briefing for foreign diplomats on Monday to try to ease their concerns about the recent spate of attacks on Christian churches.

But rather than offering a rational explanation of what exactly the Government is trying to achieve with its attempts to limit the use of the word Allah, the diplomats heard this:

Our landscape is different from other countries. Malays here are different from other countries.

So said Home Ministry secretary, Gen. Mahmood Adam.

And he may well be right about that, but he was still avoiding the issue.

Because the one fact that the Government still refuses to acknowledge is that the essence of this controversy lies not in the nature of Malaysia's culture, but in the direct actions of its Government.

It was the Government, NOT the people, that introduced legislation establishing the principle that the word Allah is exclusive to Islam.

(A claim that has been convincingly debunked by numerous experts. Here's one succinct explanation.)

What's especially comical is that even Malaysia's own Islamic leaders don't agree with the Government.

... based on Islamic principles, the use of the word Allah by the people of the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity and Judaism, is acceptable

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim (a Muslim) concurs:

With respect to the use of the word Allah, it cannot be disputed that Arabic speaking Muslims, Christians and Jews have collectively prayed to God as Allah throughout the last fourteen centuries.

While sensitivities over its usage have arisen in Malaysia, the way to resolve these conflicts is not by burning churches and staging incendiary protests but by reasoned engagement and interreligious dialogue.

Bizarrely, the consistent calls for dialogue over issues of religious sensitivities continue to go unheeded. (The Jakarta Post expresses similar concerns about the situation in Indonesia here.)

And all the while that Malaysia's Home Ministry continues to maintain the fiction that somehow its position is the Malaysian people's position, it is truly missing the wood for the trees.

Because once this particular issue fades away, what will inevitably be left behind in the minds of foreign diplomats - and investors - will be another paragraph in the catalogue of niggling entries that mark Malaysia as a "risk", a country increasingly unable to reconcile its religious and racial communities, thanks in large part to tone-deaf government.

The Huffington Post is a liberal American news website

Rising Extremism in South East Asia: Dangerous Repurcussions

by

Saad Khan
(Saad Khan is a freelance journalist from Islamabad, Pakistan)

Read here for more

Chickens are finally coming home to roost in South East Asia. Christians are being attacked in Malaysia and their churches being burnt down. The seemingly unending scuffle over the name of Allah has imploded the fragile society of Malaysia that is already teeming with racial disputes.

The rising violence should not be any surprise to anyone as Malaysia has emerged as the new center of Islamic extremism. The region is home to the largest concentration of Muslims after South Asia and they cannot remain aloof from the rising tide of militancy in other parts of the Muslim World.

Although it was a court ruling that stirred the recent spate of rioting, Malaysia and Indonesia are not immune to Islamic extremism.

Malaysia, in particular, has become the hotbed of extremism and exporting it to Indonesia and Brunei. It was even before the 2002 Bali bombings when extremists from Indonesia and Malaysia started interacting with their counterparts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hundreds of Malaysian and Indonesians participated in the Afghan Jihad during 1980s and they maintained their contacts after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.

Unlike their Afghan and Arab counterparts, Indonesian and Malaysian militants were relatively more assimilated into their respective societies and did not face any major repercussions. There were, however, other forces in the region that were not ready to tolerate the pluralistic and relatively moderate societies of South East Asia.

The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party has become an important player in this game. Although it is losing political power -- with just seven seats in national parliament down from 27 in 1999 elections -- its leaders have shored up their support for Islamic extremists. A faction of the party is even against the democratic process.

Although it veered off from its usual stance and supported the court ruling, many party leaders would be happier with the recent attacks.

Indonesians have also rejected Islamic parties in polls but it does not mean that they have lost their support. Conservative Islamic parties around the world are eschewing from the democratic process for a more hard line approach.

Jamaat, Prosperous Justice Party, PAS or any other Islamic party in other parts of the Muslim World has never enjoyed a mass popularity. Some of them maintain active links with extremist outfits while others offer a more shrouded assistance to extremist groups.

Pakistan has become the hotbed of Islamic extremism and its main exporter but Indonesia and Malaysia should not follow the same path. Apart from the racial and geopolitical situation, which calls for a pluralistic secular society in these countries, these countries are located in a region that cannot afford any other crisis.

The row over use of Allah should come to an end in a peaceful manner.

Allah is for everyone and Malaysian Muslims have no right to claim ownership of this word.

Summary of the High Court Judgement on the "Allah" Issue

Read here for more in Malaysian Insider

Read HERE the full text of the High Court Judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan's 57-page judgment on the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement
(in .pdf format. Need Acrobat Reader to read).

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes and the High Court's judgement.

(A) On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal

Justice Datuk Lau wrote:

“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations...

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence BEFORE 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is NOT for sale or distribution OUTSIDE the Church;

17. The said publication is NOT made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a STATE matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the FEDERAL territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

“The Applicant further submits that NONE of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect.

" I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)

She ruled:

“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has NOT taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed.”

(B) On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau wrote:

"...the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution...

“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra) to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a religion.

"The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity.

" In my view there is uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to (xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity.

"From the evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the “prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and national security.

"As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and (ix), I have shown UNCHALLENGED evidence that there is a well established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...

“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional.”

(C) On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational

Justice Lau wrote in her judgment:

“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...”

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in their faith and in the AL-Kitab, and on the other hand to state that the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information (see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in Malaysia...

“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1 above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005 adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab (Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982 was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia.

“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance.

"It is to be noted that a common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’ treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in the Al-Kitab are:

(i) that it is not meant for Muslims;

(ii) to be in the possession or use of Christians and in churches only.

" In fact, these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad” on the front cover of the said publication.

"Relying on the chapter on maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”.

"One would have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”.

"Indeed I am incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...

“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable.”

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims, she wrote:

“Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims.

The laws are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002 (Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word “Allah”.

"Further, all these State Enactments are made PURSUANT to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads:

“State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Federal Law may control or restrict the PROPAGATION of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”(Emphasis added)...

“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does NOT provide for State law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion OTHER than Islam...

“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought to be read with Article 11(4).

If s.9 is so read in conjunction with Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim.

"Indeed Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states:

“Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.

Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the restriction is on the right to propagate.

“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. …

"For completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full:

“WHEREAS Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

AND WHEREAS it is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …

“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case, the Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca.

"On the other hand, the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith.

"Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess and practise an even to propagate it.

“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the relevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world of information technology; information can be readily accessible.

"Are guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the Herald has gone online and is accessible to all?

"One must not forget there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only.”

(D) On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order

Justice Lau said:

“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word “Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence.

"A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of national security WITHOUT adequate supporting evidence is NOT sufficient in LAW....

“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word “Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted).

"Further, I am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of “avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a religious group can strip the constitutional right of another religious group to practise and propagate their religion under Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory.”

(E) On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court

On this, she wrote:

“I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any applicatio under O.53 r.8).

"That being the case, their submission contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the sacred word of “Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-justiciable is IRRELEVANT at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application and need not be considered by this Court.

“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority ONLY on Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the control and regulation of all publications and matters connected therewith are governed by FEDERAL Law namely the Act and only the Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers and the YDPA have NO role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the PRESENT judicial review is NOT a judicial review of the decision of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word “Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does NOT arise.

(F) On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case:

“ In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation does NOT empower and/or authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

Malaysian Govt Legislates ALLAH Geographically for Non Muslims

Read here for more

UPDATE: 22nd January 2010:

Kerajaan Kelantan TIADA halangan bagi masyarakat bukan Islam negeri itu menggunakan kalimah ‘Allah’, baik dalam pertuturan maupun dalam buku-buku agama mereka. Read here for more

---End of update ---

Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz today said that non-Muslims are allowed to use the word “Allah” in three states — Penang, Sabah and Sarawak — and the Federal Territories.

He said this is because OTHER states have enactments on Islam which PROHIBIT the use of the term by NON -Muslims.


Map Guide to Where NON-Muslim Citizens
and Visitors Coming to Malaysia
Can Use "ALLAH"



Contrary to public opinion, the Minister in charge of L aw and Parliamentary Affairs Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz thinks the court is the only way to bring an end to the “Allah” debate. Read here for more

While his Cabinet colleagues, including fellow Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, have been pushing to bring religious leaders to the table to settle the simmering stew, Nazri says it is too late for a dialogue.

“It’s too late. I’ve mentioned it many times,” Nazri said when asked his opinion on the best way to resolve dilemma, which appears to be pitting the Malaysian Muslim community against the non-Muslims.

Nazri did not reply when asked if he had read for himself the written grounds of judgment by High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan which was released last week.

Instead, he noted that the judge is not a Muslim, and had ruled over a matter that concerned the “akidah” (faith) of the Muslim community.

He said,

“You must study the psyche of the Malays. The Chinese can be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, no problem, but the Malays, the RACE itself is defined in the Constitution.

Who is a Malay? In the Constitution, a Malay is one: a Muslim; two: speaks Malay and three: practises Malay culture.

In the Constitution, there can’t be a Malay who is not a Muslim.

Anything at all, any suspicion will confuse the ordinary Malays. They become so protective because Malay and Islam cannot be separate.

In the Borneo states the people had embraced the “1 Malaysia” concept a long time ago, unlike in the west where racial lines are still very apparent.

I’m very liberal, I’m very confident, but if I try to explain to them... no way.

If everyone prays to Allah, they’ll all be Muslim. It’s a good ploy for Muslims to convert non-Muslims . "

(Adapted from Peoples' Parliament blog)

Related Article

Foot-in-mouth minister Nazri Resign

Excerpts: Read here for more

Political analyst and constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari argued that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri must resign if he chooses to express a different stance from that of the government on the contentious issue.

Abdul Aziz was referring to Nazri's announcement last Friday, that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak could use the term 'Allah', but that the practice would not be extended to those in the peninsula.

Abdul Aziz said that under the concept of collective responsibility, a minister must remain silent even if he or she does not agree with decisions made by the cabinet. Those who wish to differ will have to resign.

Deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin had said in London last week that the government will abide by the ruling.

Abdul Aziz said,

“From the constitutional point of view, Nazri may just be making clear the government's stand or policy. However, this has no legal effect as the matter now stands before the Court of Appeal

Nazri (left) has no power to vary the law as laid down by the Kuala Lumpur High Court. It is quite absurd. One cannot see how his formula can be applied, more so when Nazri does not have (jurisdiction to intervene).”

Neither the palace nor the government has the right to interfere with the judiciary.

The government has been named as a respondent in the dispute over the use of 'Allah'. By extension, Nazri is a member of the government."

Nazri, however, is not the only minister to have contradicted the official stand on the issue.

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein had initially indicated that it was all right for Muslim groups to protest the 'Allah' ruling.

Following the police chief's clarification against demonstrations, Hishammuddin 'clarified' his remark.

PANTS ON THE GROUND....

Watch This !!!

YouTube Video Hit

Pants on the ground

Pants on the ground
Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground

With the gold in your mouth
Hat turned sideways
Pants hit the ground
Call yourself a cool cat
Lookin' like a fool
Walkin' downtown with your pants on the ground

Get it up, hey!
Get your pants off the ground
Lookin' like a fool
Walkin' talkin' with your pants on the ground.

Get it up, hey!
Get your pants off the ground
Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground

Here are
"Pants on the ground"
Role Models

NO One Including Malay-Muslims Put Any Value to ALLAH ’s Name.

Read here for more in Malaysia-Today

EXCERPTS:

Is there any value in swearing an oath in Allah’s name?

The Malays are fighting to retain exclusivity to the usage of the name (of Allah).





In the OLD DAYS , you swear in Allah’s name and the benefit of the doubt is given to you.

Today, Allah’s name has NO weight. NO ONE puts any value to Allah’s name.

(But) when you invoke, everyone will laugh till they pee in the pants and then send you to jail.

While the country is up in arms about the use of the word Allah by the non-Muslims (not only the Christians but the Sikhs have also been using the Allah word for a long, long time), the Allah word found another very useful purpose.

Anwar Ibrahim Swears in the Name of Allah

Anwar Ibrahim swore in Allah’s name that he never sodomised Azizan while Azizan testified under oath (in Allah’s name) THREE TIMES during the trial that Anwar did not sodomise him. Yet the court found Anwar guilty and sentenced him to more than 15 years jail on two charges.

Sukma Swears in the Name of Allah

Sukma swore that Anwar never sodomised him and the doctor who examined him said that Sukma suffers from piles. He has problems emptying his bowels, let alone allow something to penetrate his anus. Yet Sukma was found guilty and together with Dr Munawar was sent to jail for six months for ‘allowing’ Anwar to sodomise him -- even when the doctor said it was impossible to have happened and even though the accused invoked Allah’s name to swear innocence.

Saiful Swears in the Name of Allah

Saiful swore in the name of Allah (in a mosque on top of that) that Anwar sodomised him but the doctor who examined Saiful said that there is no evidence to show the young man had been sodomised.

Najib Swears in the Name of Allah

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak swore in Allah’s name that he never met ‘that Mongolian woman’ although the Honorary Mongolian Consul to Malaysia said many times that he has seen a photograph of Razak, Najib and Altantuya taken together and has in fact handed the photograph to the IGP. Syed Rahman has told many people this story including Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and many other top Umno leaders.

It looks like, based on what we have seen thus far, swearing an oath in Allah’s name has absolutely no value whatsoever (they still send you to jail like in Anwar’s, Sukma’s, Dr Munawar’s, etc., cases) although the Quran does say that if you are accused of sexual misconduct and if you swear four times in the name of Allah that you are innocent (three times in lieu of witnesses and the fourth time to invite Allah’s wrath in the event you are lying) then you are to be presumed innocent and no action can be taken against you.

Nik Sapaeia Nik Yusof Swears in the Name of Allah

Harakah Daily (16 January 2010) reported that Datuk Nik Sapeia Nik Yusof swore in Allah's name that he did not spray Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad with a mace at the Kota Bharu airport a couple of years ago.

Based on eyewitnesses’ testimonies during the trial, the court found Nik guilty and sentenced him to six months jail. He is of course appealing the verdict and will only start serving his sentence once he exhausts all avenues to get his verdict set aside, which could take another couple of years.

I was there with my wife when the incident happened. And although we were standing quite a distance away when it happened, we still felt the effects of the spray. Those closer to the scene were gasping for breath and looked like they were suffering a heart attack.

We were at the airport probably an hour or so before Dr Mahathir’s private jet arrived. Sufi, Dr Mahathir’s personal assistant, was also there, together with many other supporters.

Nik Sapeia zoomed in with a bunch of tough looking Malays, who we later found out were army personnel, and surrounded Sufi. It looked like there was going to be a fight and we came forward to see what assistance we could offer Sufi. I feared that heads were about to be broken and poor Sufi was very pale and looked extremely scared. I resigned myself to the fact that we may have to swing fists to extricate Sufi from what was about to become a very bloody skirmish.

Ibrahim Ali stood at a distance, busy sending text messages on his mobile phone. I walked up to him to ask what was going on and he replied that Nik is a local gangster and he wants to ‘hijack’ Dr Mahathir.

It seems Nik resented the fact that Ibrahim Ali was ‘in-charge’ whereas he (Nik) was the local warlord and should instead be the one ‘hosting’ Dr Mahathir.Harakah Daily news item above, he swore in the name of Allah that he did not spray Dr Mahathir.

That may be true because I doubt any Muslim would dare swear in the name of Allah he is innocent if he is really guilty. Malays are good Muslims and never would any Muslim dare use Allah’s name in vain.

I can’t swear in the name of Allah whether the spray was in Nik’s hand or the hands of one of those army commandos who were with him. But I can swear that they all surrounded Dr Mahathir and one of them certainly did spray Dr Mahathir.

I also can’t swear in the name of Allah whether if one of the army commandos, instead of Nik, sprayed Dr Mahathir, that it was done with or without Nik’s knowledge or instruction.

But I can swear that they all arrived together in the same convoy and kept a very tight formation when they surrounded Sufi -- and later surrounded Dr Mahathir when he arrived. I can also swear that Nik was 'commanding' the tough looking commandos and they were not ‘independent’ but working as a unit and appeared to take instructions from Nik and treated him like their ‘commander’.

This is what I saw and I can swear to that. But only Nik was hauled in while the gang of commandos 'disappeared' and were never seen again.

And how many times Nik may swear in the name of Allah that he is innocent, this still does not explain the presence of that bunch of army personnel who were part of his gang and it does not explain why they were 'untouched' and only Nik is going to be sent to jail.

In a criminal act perpetuated by a gang, is it not normal for the entire gang to face the law?
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

Minister Rais Yatim Says "Internet Will Erode Malaysian Culture"

Read here for more

Rais Yatim, Malaysia's Information and Communication minister, said Muslims and other religious groups must be wary of the INTERNET as it was introduced by the West.

WE SAY,


SHOULD MALAYSIANS
EVEN BOTHER TO LISTEN TO A MINISTER WHO BEHAVES LIKE THIS IN PUBLIC?


'We must be strong in our belief and culture because the identity and image of our country depends on us,' Rais Yatim said.

Malaysia's lively blogosphere has been a thorn in the side of the Barisan Nasional government, which was been in power for more than half a century but was dealt its worst ever results in the 2008 elections.

RAIS YATIM -PROFILE

Rais Yatim obtained his PhD from the West, ie from King's College London in 1994 . He had earlier graduated with honors degree from National University of Singapore.

He was made a Foreign Minister on March 18, 2008 until April 9, 2009, dealing with diplomacy with foreign countries, includng those from the West.

Although being the current Minister of Information, Communication and Culture, his demeanor has been widely criticized as both arrogant and pompous. One instance of his attitude was recorded on video and uploaded on YouTube

Read here Malaysians' views of Rais Yatim and HERE and HERE

12th Church (and a second church for Seremban) Attacked

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

The Grace Global Prayer Church in Rasah, Seremban, had its windows shattered.

According to reports emerging, the incident occurred between Thursday 6pm and Friday evening, during which time the church was empty.

The Grace Global Prayer church is the SECOND church in Seremban to have been struck after the Sidang Injil Borneo Church had its front doors scorched by unknown arsonists.

It is the 12th church in the past week to have been attacked since certain quarters from the Muslim community expressed outrage at a recent court decision to allow a Catholic publication, the Herald, to use the word 'Allah' in its Malay-language edition.

It was discovered yesterday evening when members of the Grace Global Prayer Church - situated at the corner of a row of two-storey shoplots - arrived at its premises to conduct worship services and saw the broken window.

Govt Says ALLAH Can Stay with Non-Muslims in EAST Malaysia, BUT ALLAH Cannot Stay with Peninsular Non Muslims

Read for more on People's Parliament Blog

Malaysiakini reports today that the Federal Government has relented and agreed that “Christians in the two Malaysian Borneo states can continue to use the term ‘Allah’ for God in Malay print as they have done for the last 300 years”.

But East Malaysians residing in West Malaysia will have to abide by the “Allah for Muslims Only” prohibition.


(adapted from Peoples' Parliament blog)


Minister Nazri explained this latest mind-blogging stance of the federal government.

“Christians in Sabah and Sarawak need not worry over this issue because it is a common tradition there. I have been to an Iban church service and I heard ‘Allah’ used there.”

On why the different positions for East and West Malaysia, this clown proffered that

“the situation in the Peninsula is different as ‘Allah’ was only introduced into Christian worship and publication a few years ago”.

“Muslims in Peninsular Malaysia cannot accept it as ‘Allah’ was never used in Christian preaching until recently and they questioned the motive behind the substitution of Tuhan for ‘Allah".

On this explanation, can it then be taken that the Sikhs in West Malaysia are free to continue to use ‘Allah’ which has been in their liturgy, so I’m told, for as long as the faith has been practised?

And if so, why can’t the Christians here do likewise?

This wannabe stand up comic then proceeds to claw himself into this deep inextricable abyss and spews the rubbish that we have grown accustomed to hear from him.

Christians should recognise that using ‘Allah’ in their worship and publications is sensitive to Muslims, he says.

Therefore, he says, the government has a duty to stop acts of disrespect and provocation that inflame religious and racial feelings in the nation even if there was no law that stated that these acts were wrong.

Acts of worship where Allah is called upon is disrespectful and provocative?

Nazri cites as an example the cow head case in Shah Alam where, he says, although there was no law to criminalise cow-head stomping, the government moved to act against those perpetrators.

The logic being that, if it was not criminal to put one’s foot on a cow head, yet the government has taken action against the cow-head stompers of Shah Alam, surely we can understand that even though there is no law criminalising the use of “Allah” by adherents of other faiths besides Islam, the government can and must take action.

In case Nazri thinks we do not know, those stompers were his own party members, who were probably acting on the instructions of party higher-ups.

Certainly, we know that Home Minister Hishamuddin made a valiant attempt to defend their actions via a televised press conference. We all know about that one, don’t we?

Was the cow-head stomping an act of worship by the perpetrators, that this Minister should equate it with the mention of Allah by Christians in their worship?

If so, can someone please lodge a report against these stompers for deviant practises with the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor.

This government bright spark insists that it was not the government that took this matter to court, thus leading to the crisis we now face in the country. He blames the Catholic Archibishop.

He has forgotten that had the Home Minsitry not gotten mischievous and issued its ban order, none of this would have happened.

This next statement takes the cake.

“Banning the use of ‘Allah’ by Christians was a pre-emptive move to stop outbreaks of religious violence in the nation”.

This fool of a minister, with reference to the finding by Justice Lau Bee Lan that “there was no evidence to show that the use of ‘Allah’ (by non-Muslims) could incite violence”, alludes to the attacks on the churches last week as proving that the government was right in its pre-emptive strike.

I had tea with some UMNO people early this week. They confirmed that UMNO was behind the initial church attacks.

Another Malaysiakini report today has it that a cabinet reshuffle may be underway.

Would it be too much to hope that we might all be put out of a misery of having to endure this fool anymore?
-"People's Parliament"

This Is the Result of the UMNO-Led Govt's 53-Year Legacy for Malaysia's Economic Future

Read here article, " The impact of migration" by Ding Jo-Ann in NutGraph

The Impact of Migration (and the ALLAH Issue)

by

Ding Jo-Ann

Excerpts: Read here for more

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak says Malaysia must become a "high-income" economy so that it can stave off decreasing prosperity and standards of living.

Despite government assurances that "everything is under control", diminishing respect for rights as demonstrated by the "Allah" issue has naturally caused consternation among educated Malaysians.

With the recent attack on churches, a Catholic school and a Sikh gurdwara, MIGRATION is likely to be on the minds of some Malaysians.

World Bank Report

A government-commissioned 2007 World Bank report on Malaysia's education system and economy says Malaysia has "no choice" but to change its economic model. Malaysia, the report said, can no longer compete with the lower wages in developing countries like China and Vietnam.

The report also cited the lack of scientists and engineers, and lack of capacity for innovation as some of Malaysia's greatest weaknesses in moving to a knowledge-based economy and that many of Malaysia's fiercest competitors are working diligently to improve their higher education and national innovation systems. The report states that Malaysia will have to run even faster than its neighbours if it does not want to lose ground, what more, to gain ground.

Although the outlook appears daunting, the World Bank report concludes it is by no means impossible. All (Malaysia) needs to do, it says, is upgrade its university systems, develop innovative production modes, and address skills shortages that hamper efforts to produce more sophisticated goods and services.

The Costs of Brain Drain to Malaysia

With mass migration and the loss of skilled Malaysians, is it realistic to expect Malaysia to compete with developed economies?

Will enough skilled Malaysians stay on so that Malaysia can escape the middle-income trap?

1. Malaysian Institute of Economic Research executive director Datuk Dr Mohamed Ariff Abdul Kareem says skilled workers are crucial to move the economy up the value chain Ariff in a phone interview says:
   

   "When foreigners come looking to invest, they look for people with skills . If skilled people are leaving to go elsewhere, this will be a spoke in the wheel for us.
   
   It's not just monetary. It goes beyond dollars and cents. [Emigration] is not confined to any particular group. It's everyone; even Malay [Malaysians] are leaving.
   
   If we can't bring those abroad back home, we have to somehow increase our own supply. It will require a massive shift in the education system to supply these skills in the long term.
   
   The system needs to be completely overhauled. The lack of skilled workers in Malaysia will be especially felt once economic conditions improve.
   
   Once the economy grows, we will feel the impact because we need [skilled talent] for the economy to expand.
   
   Either we have to bring people home or attract skilled foreigners. (But) there seems to be a lack of political will in this direction."

2. Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan adds that while the number of unskilled foreign workers has increased, the number of skilled expatriates has dwindled. He says:
   

   "In 2000, we had about 80,000 expatriates [in Malaysia]. By 2008, there were only about 38,000. Coupled with that, our professionals are also moving overseas. There are currently about 785,000 Malaysians working overseas.
   
   In the US, Malaysian professionals could earn about US$100,000 a year, which is about RM340,000 a year. They would need to earn about RM28,300 a month here [to match that].
   
   Malaysians (should) return. (Malaysia) still a young nation, many opportunities remain available. However, if Malaysians choose not to return, they can still contribute their ideas and expertise from abroad."
   

   
   
3. Recruitment agency Kelly Services' vice-president and country general manager Melissa Norman confirms that the oil and gas, Islamic banking, and high technology sectors have faced challenges in finding suitable skilled labour. Melissa Norman says:
   

   "Countries such as China, Vietnam, India, Singapore, Australia and certain Middle Eastern countries have benefited from our brain drain.
   
   Skilled Malaysians would be returning to Malaysia as a result of the global economic crisis.
   
   The question is, are there sufficient numbers to stem the brain drain?"
   

4. Rating Agency Malaysia's group chief economist Dr Yeah Kim Leng says those emigrating tend to be in the high-income bracket with higher spending capabilities. He says:

   "[Their] absence will have a negative impact on consumption and consequently on the country's overall domestic demand.
   
   Emigration also causes a withdrawal of capital. When [skilled Malaysians] relocate, they bring with them whatever wealth and savings they have. It would contribute to the outflow of capital from the country. emigration can be worsened if there are discriminatory policies and loss of confidence.
   
   Loss of confidence can be triggered by various factors such as rising crime rates, corruption, deteriorating quality of life and general concerns over the longer term prospects of the economy.
   
   With the economic crisis hitting developed nations hard, emigration to developed countries may have reduced for now.
   
   In fact, if developing economies can step up growth and lure back their own as well as foreign talents, a [brain drain] reversal may be in the works.
   
   The underlying reasons for migration must be examined. Although most countries face this problem, country-specific reasons need to be looked at in greater depth.
   
   The policies in attracting skilled professionals back to Malaysia have yet to show results. We have to give it a couple of years, but implementation needs to be more effective."
   

With a UBS Securities Asia Limited report stating that there has been massive capital outflow from Malaysia in the last 12 months, these steps are more crucial than ever to ensure Malaysia's economic survival.

But with a government that is constantly mired in issues arising from bad policies favouring majority over minority rights, will we still have the resources to think about global competitiveness, and move to the next level?

There is NO Law Stopping Non-Muslims From Using 'Allah'

Quote

High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan made it clear in her judgment that the publication or use of the term 'Allah' is only prohibited if it is meant to propagate non-Islamic faiths to Muslims.

The words (in the Preamble to the Selangor Non Muslim Enactment 1988) are vital to show the prohibition is only against usage of such words as 'Allah' to PROPAGATE among Muslims.

There is NO law to stop non-Muslims from using it in their own publications meant for members of their own faith.

Furthermore, the enactments passed are STATE laws and can NEVER over-ride the Federal Constitution.
-Harcharan Singh
President,
Malaysian Gurdwaras Council

Read here in Malaysiakini for more

Excerpts:

The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council president Harcharan Singh said there is no law prohibiting the use of 'Allah' among non-Muslims,

The Preamble to the Selangor Non Muslim Enactment 1988 states that the law is meant to control and restrict the PROPAGATION of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the Islamic faith.

Harcharan said, the Selangor Islamic Council president Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa's statement (reported in the New Straits Times on Jan 12,) omitted to mention the preamble to the section.

Harcharan said,

"These words (in the preamble) are vital to show the prohibition is only against usage of such words as 'Allah' to propogate among Muslims.

There is no law to stop non-Muslims from using it in their own publications meant for members of their own faith.

Furthermore, the enactments passed are state laws and can NEVER over-ride the Federal Constitution."

The detractors should consider the preamble to the 1988 Act which prohibits the usage of 'Allah' to propogate non-Islamic faiths among Muslims.

Any argument for or against, should include the position of the federal constitution as Malaysia's supreme law,""

The High Court judge Lau Bee Lan made it clear in her judgment that the publication or use of the term 'Allah' is only prohibited if it is meant to propogate non-Islamic faiths to Muslims.

Harcharan appealed to everyone to look at the present issue from the historical and the federal constitution viewpoint.

The New Straits Times in its Tuesday edition quoted Mohamad Adzib as saying that there are laws prohibiting the use of the word by non-Muslims.

Harcharan said Perak was the first state to pass such a legislation called the "Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Bill 1988".

"After the enactment was passed, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) met the then prime minister to express its concern.

The MCCBCHS also issued a statement where it viewed the restriction on non-Muslims as unconstitutional. Dr Mahathir Mohamad had then promised to look into the matter."

Al-QUR'AN - Sura 29 (AL-'ANKABUT): Ayat 46

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

29:46
(Pickthal) And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.

29:46
(Yusuf Ali) And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).”

29:46
(Khan )And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)."

29:46
( Rashad ) Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters."