(Petaling Jaya, Thursday): Apart from the usual rigging and unfair election practices, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his party had clinched a landslide victory in the 2004 general elections strictly on the premise of beautiful promises.

He introduced a new brand of Islam called 'Islam Hadhari', promising a moderate and modern approach with greater openness. And he also promises that he will always be a leader for all races, upholding equality, justice and fairness at all times.

But the gap between promise and reality has since widened following a number of failures and weaknesses, such as the futile efforts in fighting corruption and the establishment of IPCMC, the 'business as usual' for cronies and family members of the political elites, and the extension of NEP and other racist policies.

He recently dealt a big blow to freedom of religion when he told all parties to stop any discussion on religion. He even blamed the Article 11 grouping for trying to question the status of Islam as the country's official religion.

He said discussion of the issue, if not kept in check, would create a tense situation among the country's multi-racial and multi-religious people.

Abdullah, who is the UMNO president, reiterated his call to stop immediately all discussions on establishing the proposed Inter-Faith Council (IFC).

He said the Cabinet had put off a decision on the establishment of IFC and there was, therefore, no need to discuss it.

This shows that he has decided to sweep everything under the carpet.

But what were so wrong about interfaith and interfaith dialogue, Mr. Prime Minister?

"The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions, ( i.e. "faiths") at both the individual and institutional level."Interfaith" is distinct from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding between different religions to increase "tolerance" towards others, rather than to synthesize new beliefs."

And does he realize that Article 11 is actually unrelated to Inter-Faith Commission?

Article 11, a coalition of Malaysian NGOs committed to upholding the fundamental rights of all Malaysians regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

In a recent 'blacked out' media statement, Article 11 has claimed that the Prime Minister's decision was based on 'the widespread but mistaken belief that the coalition's activities are aimed at reviving the initiative to establish an Inter-Faith Commission (IFC).

Article 11 will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister to request further information about his concerns regarding the coalition's activities and to provide clarification on the misconception that links Article 11 with the IFC.

In an email sent to me this morning, DAP Life Advisor Dr Chen Man Hin has described the open ban on future open dialogues whether by Article 11 or IFC as a 'denial of the right to practice religious freedom as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

He said Islam Hadhari was Abdullah's brain child, presented to Malaysians as part of his presentation as a modern, moderate and liberal prime minister.

He said the true face of Islam Hadhari is gradually being revealed and shown to be conservative and rigid.

He said the handling of the Moorthy convert case shows a strong bias for Islam with no respect for religious freedom.

Dr Chen observes that before Islam Hadhari, there was no compulsion for non-Muslim women police officers to wear a tudung.

Before Islam Hadhari, the national attire for athletes at international function was secular/multiracial. Now it is the songkok and Malay baju/sarong kebaya.

He said it is quite obvious that the election promises made two years ago have flown
out of the window.  "Democracy and religious freedom is now veering to the code of an Islamic State". I could not agree with him more.

I am reproducing the introduction of Article 11 here as per the leaflet issued by the grouping for better understanding of all readers.

The coalition of NGOs known as Article 11 is committed to embracing, upholding and pursuing the realisation of the following principles as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and Human Rights Conventions:  

• no citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender

• parents ( both mother and father ) are equal guardians and have equal say in all aspects of the upbringing of children

• children shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion and in all cases, the interests of children shall be paramount

• the freedom of thought, conscience and belief for all persons shall be fully respected, guaranteed and protected

• every citizen has a responsibility to condemn discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief

• every citizen has a responsibility to apply religion or belief in support of human dignity and peace.

Article 11 is fully committed to upholding those fundamental rights for all Malaysians regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

Article 11 comprises: 

• All Women's Action Society (AWAM)

• Bar Council Malaysia

• Catholic Lawyers Society

• Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship

• Malaysian Civil Liberties Society, Protem Committee (MCLS)

• Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism & Sikhism (MCCBCHS)

• National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)

• Pure Life Society

• Sisters In Islam (SIS)

• Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

• Vivekananda Youth Movement, Seremban

• Women's Aid Organisation (WAO)

• Women's Development Collective (WDC)

Background To The Formation Of Article 11

 
 In April 2004, the civil High Court in Kuala Lumpur granted custody of 2 young boys aged 2 and 4 years to their Hindu mother. The judge imposed one condition ?she was not to expose her sons to her Hindu faith. The 2 boys were previously, without her knowledge or consent, converted to Islam by her estranged husband, himself a recent convert to Islam. The same court had earlier dismissed an application by the Hindu mother for a declaration that the conversion of the 2 young children to Islam violated her parental right to co-determine the religious upbringing of the children. The reasoning of the court was that it had no jurisdiction, as the children were now Muslim and the correctness or otherwise of their conversion was a matter for the Syariah Court.

Shamala's case brought home the point that the constitutional role of the civil High Court as the protector of the rights of the ordinary citizen was fast becoming illusory. The implications of this case, however, became the rallying force that drew together a small number of concerned NGOs and members of civil society. This group noted that besides Shamala's case, there were other cases that had impacted the right of belief and the right to practise one's belief as guaranteed under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. By May 2004, Shamala's case had given life to a coalition of NGOs, which has come to be known as Article 11.