Lina Joy sets discrimination against Muslims in stone (Part One)

How many societies in the world actively celebrate discrimination against their own? As various Muslim groups and quarters laud the decision of the Federal Court in Lina Joy v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors, the more devious implication of the majority decision is lost on many.

As a result of the aforementioned case, an extra requirement is imposed upon members of the faithful in matters relating to membership of the faith; a requirement which is not imposed upon other segments of Malaysia’s various religions. This means that non-Muslims, and therefore by implication the non-Bumiputeras, are afforded more human rights than the princes of the soil. But instead of being up in arms over this form of discrimination, conservative Muslim groups have decided to celebrate the decision as a move which protects the special status of Islam in Malaysia at the expense of a human right.

This discrimination was mentioned by His Lordship Richard Malanjum FCJ himself in his dissenting judgment:

Regulation 4… has, however, singled out Muslims for additional procedural burdens and impediments which are not connected to personal law. It requires that any registrant or person applying who is a Muslim has to state his or her religion. The requirement does not apply to non-Muslims. There is therefore a differential treatment for Muslims. Hence, in my view this tantamount(s) to unequal treatment under the law… In other words it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down.

The case of Lina Joy also signifies the growing Islamisation of the country when conservatives are willing to sacrifice their very own freedom in a bid to protect Islam as the religion with a special status in the country. It is worrying when one imagines what else they are willing to sacrifice. Yes, it is noble to protect Islam from unwanted influences, but one must realize that any idea or belief which unifies also operates by way of exclusion. Are the wishes of one woman enough to bind the whole ummah? Taking that further, are we willing to imprison Bumiputeras so as to protect its special status?

The case of Lina Joy merely sets the road upon which this nation is travelling on stone, and it has deviated so far we know not where we are.

Malay Dailies Criticize Maybank U-Turn

Amidst talk of boycott and angry Malaysiakini letters, Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia carried news of statements by various Bumiputera factions claiming that Maybank’s proposed ruling on empanelment which required a law firm to have three partners, one of whom must be a Bumiputera with at least a 50% equity stake in the firm, should have been enforced.

In the Berita Harian, it was reported that Gagasan Badan Ekonomi Melayu (Gabem) felt the rulings would have ensured the preservation of Bumiputera interests as well as allow them to compete in a fairer environment.

The chairman of Gabem, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, said that the organization wants Malaysia to not only be economically developed, but also for the people to live in unity. As such, he continued, what Maybank did was patriotic and positive towards the efforts of placing Malaysia as a developed and unified country.

Maybank Revises Guidelines

A few days after Maybank’s new ruling on selection of law firms based on race equity for empanelment, the country’s largest bank has decided to revise the aforesaid ruling. According to Bernama, ‘Malayan Banking Bhd, Wednesday said it will continue to select solicitor firms based primarily on performance, efficiency and merit, revising earlier guidelines requiring legal firms to have Bumiputera equity if they wanted to do business with the bank.’

Maybank’s New Bumiputera Ruling

Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank), the country’s largest banking group, introduced new regulations which would require law firms to have a minimum of three partners, of whom one must be Bumiputera with a minimum 50 per cent stake in the firm. The new regulations were supposed to take effect 1 July 2007, but may be changed pending a review of the said regulations following criticisms from various quarters, not least the Bar Council. Another bank, which has not been identified, has been reported as planning to introduce to same regulations.

CLP woes

The results of this year’s CLP examinations which took place in July 2006 had the lowest passing rate in its history. Apparently, only an estimated 10% passed the exam in totality, out of around 1000 entrants. Furthermore, the 10% includes an unknown number of entrants who had failed it initially.

There have been numerous letters written in by concerned entrants and their parents to the mainstream press as well as Malaysiakini recently with regard to this numerical discrepancy. In reply, this author has caught at least two letters which defend the examinations. The crux of these letters mention that the failure rate is high due to the mental parity of students who are taught in a rote education system; to remember answers rather than to devise them on their own. According to these letters, this method has no place in the CLP, and for a legal system such as ours we should not allow law students who do not have the appropriate legal mind to become members of the Bar. Though this argument has its own merit, it is nevertheless still unlikely that it is the main reason for 90% of CLP entrants to fail. This author doubts what it infers: that only 10% of entrants embody a proper legal mentality.

We Should Need No Review

This year and the last have been marked heavily by constant calls for a review of the 1988 fiasco where the Lord President was sacked along with two of his fellow brothers in a series of events which highlighted a struggle of power between the executive and the judiciary. The 1988 judicial crisis ended with the consolidation of the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad’s power over all three branches of the Malaysian Government. The judiciary, consequently, was never the same as allegations of corruption, favouritism and inefficiency plagued it consistently.

Tun Salleh Abas LP, as one of the players, spoke out this year of the challenges he faced and revealed new facts as to his sacking to the media, both mainstream and non-mainstream. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Mohamed Nazri Aziz, himself has played down calls for a judicial review and has arbitrarily shot down any chance of such a review.

It is, however, dubious to this author of what consequence such a review can have if it is indeed allowed and established. Two of the sacked judges including the then-Lord President himself are in a poor physical state while the third has since passed on. There can obviously be no real or actual compensation to the victims, owing to the current status quo of the judiciary. Nor is any reprimand to the instigator of the 1988 proceedings, be it Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad or any other party or person, be of any real value considering how Dr. Mahathir, assuming that the esteemed ex-premier is truly the sine qua non of the whole affair, is no longer Prime Minister and has reaped the benefits, if any, of 1988 to its fullest. Moreover, the man who replaced Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President, who presided over the Tribunal which led to the latter’s sacking, has since retreated into the background.