Think 3:06 - Article 11

In an environment of religious tension, this coalition of 13 NGOs has proven that silence is not golden
By Chris Chew

“The police have classified the matter as criminal intimidation. Others have called it a death threat. I think that it is far more. It is a symptom of the breakdown of civilised dialogue in this country. It is a sign of the reactionary times ahead.”
- Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, in his article ‘The Compromise One Cannot Make’, New Sunday Times, 27 August 2006

For Malik Imtiaz, August was supposed to be a comparatively subdued month. The 36-year-old lawyer and president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) had completed his involvement on the panel of a series of forums entitled ‘Federal Constitution: Protection For All’. The last one held in Johor Bahru in July was a relative success, but a Government order calling for the cessation of these forums meant that things looked to be relatively quiet for the remainder of the year. Malik had even entertained the possibility of having a casual night out or two at one of those classy Bangsar joints.

That is, until he received a forwarded email. It contained a poster (which was also printed and circulated via SMS) with a ‘WANTED DEAD’ headline above a photograph of himself. Beneath that, the message in Malay read “This is the face of the traitorous lawyer to Islam who supports the Lina Joy apostasy case. Distribute to our friends so they can recognise this traitor. If you find him dead by the side of the road, do not help.”

It was shocking, to say the least. Malik had presided as co-counsel over a watching brief for the aforementioned case, whereby Lina Joy’s application to remove the term ‘Islam’ from her IC (having converted to Christianity eight years ago) was denied by the National Registration, and a subsequent appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

In standing up for the basic belief that the Federal Constitution reigns supreme, and that the right to practise one’s religion without fear or reservation is not a fairytale notion, that crudely formed, blatantly communicated poster became a succinct summary of the kind of sinister resistance faced by Malik and everyone else who has chosen to associate themselves with Article 11. Yet despite the opposition, the coalition of NGOs against religious discrimination in Malaysia has proven that the power of unified, organised noise, no matter how vociferous the feedback, is infinitely superior to the blackness of silence.

‘ENEMIES OF SATAN’
When you consider that Article 11 has no physical office, logo or corporate colour, it is remarkable how branded it has become. The coalition has been accused of being everything from “enemies of Islam” to wanting to overthrow the country’s monarchy, to simply stirring racial discord and disharmony among Malaysia’s already-tense society.

“There has been an attack by some quarters to make it look like Article 11 is launching an attack on Islam,” says Haris Ibrahim, the 47-year-old lawyer who represents the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS) and heads the coalition’s planning committee together with Ivy Josiah, the executive director of Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO). “This is being conveyed to Muslims in the marketplace. Meanwhile, those who convey these things continue to attempt to hijack the processes that are already in place in this country.”

These processes are essentially summed up in a single act: upholding the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, particularly with regards to religious issues. The coalition (which, apart from WAO, HAKAM and MCLS, consists of the All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Bar Council Malaysia, Catholic Lawyers Society, Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship, Pure Life Society, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Vivekananda Youth Movement, Women’s Development Collective, Sisters In Islam, and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism) draws its name from an article in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion to every Malaysian citizen.

“The Pakistani constitution has provisions which declare the Syariah law as the supreme law of Pakistan,” writes Malik in a letter published on Malaysiakini in July, a week after the Johor Bahru forums. “The Malaysian Constitution does not…. [While] Islam was to be given protected

status, as a matter of law and the application of law, Malaysia was to be a secular, Westminster-style democracy. This thinking, having gone to the establishment of the free nation of Malaya and then later, Malaysia, with its gloriously pluralist, multi-racial, multireligious make up, cannot be dismissed as being mere opinion.”

Of course, controversy for the sake of it would be meaningless, not to mention having little long term effect. But Article 11’s influence has been so intensely palpable, that any furore must be seen in light of the gain. Over the past year, the coalition has taken one of Malaysia’s most shrouded, impenetrable arenas from the hushed recesses of coffee shop conversations and catapulted it into the public sphere, forcing widespread discourse and demanding mainstream attention. In carrying out its objectives with fervency, Article 11 has demonstrated that an issue as unanimously essential to the foundations of society—religion—cannot be swept under the carpet of apathy and ignorance.

THE ROOTS OF CHANGE
The coalition began in May 2004, while Haris was holding a watching brief on behalf of selected women’s groups for a case involving a Hindu mother named S. Sharmala, whose two sons had been converted to Islam by her estranged husband, without her consultation. When Sharmala made an appeal to the High Court, she was told that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that it was left to the Syariah Court to decide. Eventually, Sharmala obtained custody of her sons, but only on the condition that she would not expose her children to Hindu teachings.

Undoubtedly, the decision enraged many. But it also triggered another response: resolve. Realising that the ruling had effectively denied justice to Sharmala and others like her, representatives from the aforementioned NGOs bandied together, resulting in an inaugural meeting at the offices of Sisters in Islam in May 2004.

“At first, we had no name for this [gathering],” recalls Haris. “We just saw cases besides the Sharmala case that had impacted our right to practise our beliefs under Article 11 of the Constitution, and we knew we had to do something about that. But as we met a few more times, someone suggested that we should have a name. And so Article 11 seemed like an appropriate name.”

From these initial assemblies, the first forum was organised in June 2004. It drew attention to concerns that had emerged from the Sharmala case, including the impact of Islamisation on a nation that was founded on secular, if distinctly spiritual, roots.

The arrival of 2006 seemed to underline the added importance of the coalition. As 2005 ended, Malaysia was stirred by the conflict involving the body of 36-year-old M. Moorthy, who was among the first Malaysians to climb Mount Everest. Despite his wife’s insistence that Moorthy was a Hindu at the time of death, the High Court ruled that he had died a Muslim, and hence the decision fell within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court (in the process ignoring an earlier Supreme Court decision that had declared jurisdiction over a dispute involving a Muslim and a non-Muslim to remain with the civil courts).

The decision proved to be the tipping point that prompted Article 11 to reactivate its series of forums. Entitled ‘Federal Constitution: Protection for All’, the forums were aimed at clarifying the issues that had emerged from the Moorthy case and several others, as well as educating the public on their religious rights as afforded to all by the Federal Constitution.

“Until recently, our Federal Constitution has always operated harmoniously with the provision that Islam is the religion of the federation,” says Malik. “There were several decisions in the 1990s along these lines that were broad and constructive. So what has changed from that time till now? That is the question that Article 11 posed [in its forums].”

Co-organised with independent newspaper Aliran, the first forum in Petaling Jaya drew over 600 attendees. Malik and Josiah made up part of the panel, which included Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi (professor of law at Universiti Teknologi MARA), Y.B. Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (MP for Kota Baru) and Datuk Dr Cyrus Das (Lina Joy’s counsel). Besides delving deep into the numerous religious issues at stake, Article 11 also introduced an open letter addressed to Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, which participants were free to sign to show their support for the Federal Constitution.

Response seemed promising; almost 500 signatures were obtained on the first day. A subsequent forum in Malacca in April drew similarly positive response, and all signs indicated that the third forum in Penang, scheduled for 14th May, would ride the steadily building momentum.

Of course, anyone paying attention to the news at the time knows what happened. That Sunday in May, at around 7.45am, a crowd began to gather in front of Cititel Hotel, where the forum was being held. According to a news report by Aliran, the crowd swelled to over 200 people by 9.30am. Carrying placards, distributing flyers and chanting incensed slogans, the mob threatened to gatecrash the forum and end proceedings, forcefully if necessary. At the advice of the police, the organisers were forced to end after just 45 minutes instead of the scheduled four-hour run time.

The backlash didn’t end there. Two days later, the Anti-Inter-Faith Commission body (BADAI) issued a press statement thanking the mob, and warning Article 11 that future road shows would subject the group to “bigger risks” than what happened in Penang. The coalition tried to continue; it handed the open letter, which had 20,000 signatures, to the Prime Minister’s office in June, and went ahead with its final forum in Johor Bahru that saw 500 protestors gather. But two days later, in an effort to dissipate the escalating hostility, the Prime Minister called for the forums to halt.

It was a disappointing but inevitable conclusion. “We were not altogether happy with the gag order,” says Haris. “But we understood the Prime Minister’s concerns. The pot was about to boil over, and our detractors were becoming more and more vociferous. So we respected his decision, and ended the forums.”

THE FUTURE OF FAITH
Over the remaining six months of 2006, Article 11 chose to lay low. It silently redeveloped its mission statement, objectives and FAQs, while expanding its networks. “But we are far from dead,” says Haris. “There’s too much at stake.”

Little has simmered in terms of the nation’s religious agenda. The Government embarked on a campaign to demolish illegally constructed Hindu temples, some of which were built 100 years ago and hence lacked proper registration. In PAS-led Kelantan, the state authorities issued a ruling that imposed a dress code on women, with threats of spot-checks and a RM500 fine. A decision on the Lina Joy apostasy case has been indefinitely postponed, while other incidences such as the dispute over Anthony Rayappan’s dead body (that was eerily similar to the Moorthy case) and a seditious SMS that claimed national mariner Dato Azhar Mansor would be baptising a group of Muslim students in a church in Ipoh have only served to heighten the apprehension and deepen the divisions.

Yet for many in the Article 11 group, the surge in religious discrimination is seen as a by-product of the attempt by Malaysia’s political parties to position themselves as championing the cause of the Muslim population. And in doing so, stirring conflict amongst Malaysian citizens has become mere collateral damage in the thirst for increased support, influence and power.

“Who or what forces are driving us to become more polarised?” asks Honey Tan, the executive director of AWAM. “Religion is being politicised to suit certain parties. How then are we to deal with these people or forces?”

It is a question that has no easy answer. With elections rumoured to occur in 2007, Haris expects more political posturing to occur in the name of religion. “It happened in the previous two elections in 1999 and 2004,” he says. “Parties will try to out-Islamise each other, and things will become more hyped than before. It is unfortunate, really.”

In many ways, Article 11 continues to exist, because apathy continues to exist. Haris recalls the period when Hindu temples were first being demolished. “That time, civil society allowed this to happen to fellow Malaysians,” he says. “Instead of asking the question ‘Why are they doing this to Malaysian temples?’, they saw it as an issue for Hindus to worry about, and ignored it.”

“It is unfortunate that this issue has to go to court,” Haris continues, citing the recent suit filed by lawyer P. Uthayakumar against the Government for what has been viewed as an action based on invalid, inapplicable regulations. “But non-Muslims have been issuing a ‘blank cheque’ for far too long. As a result, some parties have grown accustomed to getting away with doing things without any check and balance.”

Haris reiterates his stance, and that of Article 11. “Civil society cannot be silent and passive. Civil society cannot allow the Islamisation of a territory that was intended to be secular.”

For now, civil society continues to do as it pleases. While Haris notes a definite improvement in society’s awareness of their country’s undercurrents—thanks to Internet-based news sites like Malaysia Today or Malaysiakini, as well as bloggers—he acknowledges that it is taking longer than expected for the message of awareness and action to get out.

Which is what makes Article 11 so essential, perhaps more than ever. While plans for 2007 remain in their formative stages, Malik suggests that if forums were to resume, the approach would certainly be different. “We understand where the Prime Minister is coming from,” he says. “But Article 11 has always been about promoting discussion and awareness. To this end, we will continue.

Traitors or patriots, Article 11 has chosen to remain in the thick of the battle, often standing in positions where conflict is bloodiest. Their dogged determination has allowed us to remain in the freedom we know, but their battle scars remind us to become partakers in the healing of society’s fractures.

“I was forced into having to choose between my commitment to my birthplace and fellow citizens, on the one hand, and my personal safety on the other. It is a terrible, the worst, position to be in. It is a point of total surrender, of a complete loss of faith of not only everything one believes in, but also of humanity. I was not prepared to make that compromise. I still am not.”
- Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, in his article ‘The Compromise One Cannot Make’, New Sunday Times, 27 August 2006