Malaysia is a Secular state or an Islamic country?

There are some law issues being argued of late, among them like Secular state and Islamic country, etc. Shad Saleem Faruqi Professor of Law at UiTM clarified that:

Secular state:

De facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz crossed swords with DAP’s Lim Kit Siang over the latter’s claim that Malaysia is a secular state.

The law minister correctly pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the word “secular”.

Further, as Islam is recognised in the Constitution as the religion of the federation, it would be improper to regard the country as a secular state.

In support of this view, one can point out that the word “Islam” is mentioned at least 24 times in the Constitution, the words Mufti, Kadi Besar and Kadi at least once each. In Schedule 9, List II, paragraph 1, state legislatures are permitted to apply Islamic law to Muslims in a variety of civil areas.

The state legislatures are also permitted to create and punish offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam except in relation to matters within federal jurisdiction.

Syariah courts may be established. Under Article 121(1A), syariah courts are independent of the civil courts.

On the other side, Lim correctly pointed out that Malayan constitutional documents and pronouncements by early leaders indicate that at its birth the federation was meant to be a secular state.

To back this view, one can point to the Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh’s case that although Islam is the religion of the federation, it is not the basic law of the land.

Article 3 on Islam imposes no limits on the power of parliament to legislate contrary to the syariah. Islamic law is not the general law of the land either at the federal or state levels.

It applies only to Muslims and that too in limited and specified areas. It is noteworthy that non-Muslims are not subject to syariah or to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.

Islamic country:

Ever since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s declaration on Sept 29, 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic country, this debate ignites periodically and no firm conclusion is ever possible because of the problem of semantics – the assignment of different meanings to the words “secular” and “theocratic” by participants in the discourse.

My personal view is that if by a theocratic state is meant that the law of God is the supreme law of the land and that the temporal ruler is subject to the final direction of the theological head, then clearly Malaysia is not a theocratic state due to the presence of a supreme Constitution and the overriding power of secular authorities over the religious establishment.

At the same time if by a secular state is meant that law and religion are separated from each other; that there is no legally prescribed official religion; that religion is not interwoven into the affairs of the state; that no state aid is given to any religious creed; and that religion is left entirely to private establishments, then Malaysia is certainly not a secular state.

Then how should we be described? It is submitted that the Malaysian legal system is neither fully secular nor fully theocratic. It is hybrid. It permits legal pluralism.

It avoids the extremes of American style secularism or Saudi or Taliban type of religious control over all aspects of life. It walks the middle path. It promotes piety but does not insist on ideological purity.

Muslims are governed by divinely ordained laws in some fields but in others their life is regulated by Malay adat and by secular provisions enacted by elected legislatures. Non-Muslims are entirely regulated by secular laws.

In sum, the secular versus theocracy debate is full of semantics and polemics and will take us nowhere.

Reflecting On The Law By Shad Saleem Faruqi

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM.

Related post: Malaysia a transit point for terrorists or a terrorist recruitment centre?   

Malaysia a transit point for terrorists or a terrorist recruitment centre?

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia is a transit point for terrorists, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

However, he stressed that the country is not a recruitment ground or a target for international terrorists groups.

“I want to assure Malaysians that the country is not a target at the moment,” Hishammuddin said after chairing a crime prevention meeting in Parliament yesterday.

He also dismissed fears that the country had become a recruitment ground for terrorists.

“I can confirm that this is not the case,” he said, adding that the two Malaysians detained in Beirut for alleged links to al-Qeada were not part of a terrorist cell here.

“The threat of global terrorism is a real threat and is not unique and limited to Malaysia and the arrest of the Malaysians clearly shows this,” he added.

Malaysians Muhamad Razin Sharhan Mustafa Kamal, 21, and Razif Mohd Ariff, 30, are being charged in a military court for allegedly being involved in terrorist activities.

Meanwhile, the Higher Education Ministry acknowledged that students are vulnerable to being recruited by terrorists.

“In this age of openness and visibility of information, students are also exposed to all this,” said Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin.

“I hope our students are mature and are not be swayed by these things,” he said after the launch of the Ready4Work online portal.

Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen said the arrests of Muhamad Razin and Razif would not change the good perception tourists have of Malaysia.

“The world knows Malaysia is not a centre of terrorism. There has never been a single terrorist incident in our country,” said Dr Ng after opening an anti-crime against women seminar in Raub yesterday.

However, she said all Malaysians should not let their guard down and continue to remain vigilant.

 - The Star/Asia News Network

Related Stories:
Local server shuts down al-Qaeda's online library after being alerted
Duo deny links to al-Qaeda militant group

Form over substance in higher education and university rankings

Death knell for higher education

 
There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

THIS month marks the 22nd year I have worked as an academic.

In that time, I have seen many changes in the university. There have been, of course, some improvements since those early days.

For one thing, technology has transformed things for the better.  Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

The very first publication I wrote went through this rather painful process.

First, I had to go to the library and find the relevant cases and journal articles. Then having taken copious notes, I went back to my office where I proceeded to write out my thoughts with an ancient device known as a pen.

Having completed this task, I would send my scratching to a lovely lady in the general office downstairs whose job title was “steno”.

She would type out what I wrote, give it back to me to check and then I would return it to her with any corrections. Finally, it would be placed into a pocket made of paper known as a stamped envelope and posted to the publisher.

Now, all cases and statutes including many journals are online. I type my work myself (with the computer checking my spelling and grammar) and when I am done I e-mail the stuff to the publisher.

All in the comfort of my office where I can play Flight of the Hamsters in between constructing sentences filled with gems of wisdom.

I will be the first to admit that I am quite old-fashioned in many ways, but I can categorically say that I don’t miss the days before the Internet and Word.

Progress, unfortunately, is not always positive. And it saddens me to say that over these last two decades I have seen changes that in my opinion ring the death knell for higher education.

In my opinion, the key problem is that those who decide the direction of our universities have lost track of the values that have to underpin these institutions in order for them to play a meaningful role in society.

There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

Politicians harp on about it, so the Government makes it a priority. Because the Government wants higher rankings, the vice-chancellors start ranting about it too.

Rankings have become the raison d’etre for universities.

The quick fix then becomes the holy grail, hence universities look to the ranking criteria and they focus their efforts on doing all they can to meet those criteria.

This blinkered modus operandi then leads to some seriously contorted developments which ignore the principles that are necessary for the proper foundations of truly good universities.

Academic autonomy is one of those principles.

A university is a complex organisation. It is unlike a factory where there is by and large one goal and usually one method with which to achieve the said goal with the best quality and efficiency.

Even in one faculty, there are many variations. Take, for example, the Faculty of Arts – you have departments as diverse as English and Geography; Urban Planning and Gender Studies; International Studies and Indian Studies; the list goes on.

You can’t possibly be laying down a single criterion for quality for such a diverse group. But that is what happened.

Nowadays, if you want to prove your quality, the only way you can do it, which is embraced by universities, is if you publish in the journals recognised by the ranking organisations.

It doesn’t matter if you are an English professor who publishes well-received novels, or if you are a Gender Studies lecturer who uses your knowledge for women’s activism.

What about the fine arts? Shouldn’t the creation of new ideas in dance and theatre take precedence over an article in some obscure (but acknowledged by the rankers) journal which only a handful of people will read?

Increasingly, the thinking of universities is it is our way or the highway.

Such a top down approach cannot work because each academic unit in a university has its own expertise and its own value system.

This has to be respected because they themselves should know how to advance their discipline both in an academically and socially meaningful manner.

Autonomy brings with it the necessary flexibility for each department and each academic to chart the necessary course which will improve themselves and their own disciplines.

And who should know better what that course should be than those who have trained in that discipline.

I am not against the publishing of works in reputable journals. I acknowledge that they are important to the advancement of academic thought.

What I am saying is that the diversity of academia means that there are numerous methods to determine quality. And the best way to achieve quality is by having true academic autonomy so that those who know best are the ones who determine the way to achieve the best.

BRAVE NEW WORLD By AZMI SHAROM
azmisharom@yahoo.co.uk

Related posts:
Malaysian education is too Western-centric, ignorance of Asian values, etc!...
Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ratings and rankings
Top 10 universities in South East Asia, Malaysia not in!
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality and English not up to par!.