Why Did I Join the Vigil?

by KJ John
KJ John served in public service for 30 years and took optional retirement to work in his own consulting group. He hopes to see transparent and open, new governance practiced in Malaysia some day.


Three nights ago, I received an urgent SMS - Father Jojo requested Christians to gather in front of the High Court for a vigil on the issue of the "denial of rights" involving the wife of the army commando M Moorthy who had died recently.
This was the first time I had been invited to a vigil for any cause. I had to quickly make some important choices and decisions. What are the real issues? Do I support the cause? Is it something worth standing up for and to make a statement? And is it really that important to take and make time to be there?

By 8.20pm, I turned up at the High Court sidewalk with a whole bunch of others, including Dr Irene Fernandez, the winner of the alternative Nobel Award, and two siblings - all my kampong mates. Most of the friends I texted did not come though. I met many other friends and made some new acquaintances, including a Special Branch officer from the Dang Wangi police station assigned to keep watch of the situation.

It was my privilege to be there, and hopefully my two youngest will understand why daddy had to suddenly run off to attend an urgent call to a "peaceful protest".

Now, why did I do it? The SB officer also asked me the same question of a 30-year ex-government servant who drove all the way from PJ to get there for the 15-minute vigil. I said, "for the sake of my children and grandchildren!"


Grey area

Unbeknown to most average Malaysians, our now freer judicial system is making a lot of bold and clear decisions regarding many matters. That is very good and clears the air for more transparent and open governance. Hopefully it will be ‘good’ governance.

Nevertheless, one whole grey area is the issue of jurisdictional authority and governance is in the case of Muslim Malaysians. It is purported and interpreted that the Syariah Court's jurisdiction covers all Muslims and all Muslim-related matters.

In this specific case in point, the Syariah Court ruled that L/Cpl Moorthy was a Muslim and thus should be buried with Muslim rites of passage. The grayness of the issue arises from the fact that his conversion was kept secret from his family and especially his next of kin, his only wife. But, as Dr Chandra Muzaffar was reported to have said, "technically speaking, he was committing khalwat or zina but the authorities put up with it. It is very disturbing that they would choose to get involved after his death."

The fact of the matter is that even if the late Moorthy converted, it was such a well-kept secret that even his only wife did not know about it! Now, this raises a question on whether that is a substantive conversion, or only a surface one for reasons better known to others and the deceased.

The core issue in the case are two foundational and fundamental issues; that of which is the supreme law of this land especially in civil and organisational life, and what the limits of the syariah (or faith groups) jurisdiction is on "extra-personal or on individual" matters. That makes the whole exercise and debate a constitutional matter, and not one merely for courts to declare their "non-jurisdictional authority," as in two recent cases (including the Lina Joy case), and concomitantly their ignorance.

Suhakam chairman himself, a former attorney-general, said, "I think this is a constitutional issue. The individual has the right to choose his or her own religion. Once the person has embraced Islam, he has to act in accordance to the tenets of the religion. Otherwise, there is no meaning or commitment to this conversion" (Star, pp 8). Well stated.

In yesterday's Sun, editor-in-chief Zainon Ahmad made the same argument and concluded that maybe it would have been more representative of civilisational Islam if Jakim allowed the family to bury the deceased with Hindu rites, even if he had converted, because that would have demonstrated the real compassion in Islam.

Shaila Koshy (Star) quotes the 1991 case of then High Court judge, Eusoff Chin, adjudicating on a similar tussle when he ruled that Lee Siew Kee "had not been properly converted, was not a Muslim when he died and ordered the remains to be delivered to Lee's widow."


God-given human rights

My children and grandchildren have an inalienable and God-given human right to practice any faith of their choice. I pray that they follow mine and that of my forefathers of 2,000 years. I also recognise that, as a father, even my right to teach them their faith is limited to the age of 18 in Malaysia.

That right of this fundamental and human choice to have the "freedom of conscience" is a God-given right of human dignity and cannot be denied or refused by any human or governmental law. This is the Universal Human Rights Declaration agreed to by all nation-states.

In my doctoral dissertation, such a basic human right which I termed "human dignity" was defined as the freedom to "live a life of (God-ordained) destiny in the workplace." I suppose that same right applies to the lived place, and not merely the workplace. The public space of lived life is therefore our organisational space for living as well. How we define and constraint that space also defines and constraints our living; and can often deny our God-given dignity of being human.

It is obvious now from the different analyses in the media that Jakim and the two courts and their "collaborators" handled themselves with "less than full integrity." Therefore, if, Zainon Ahmad says in today's Sun review of 2005, that it was PM Pak Lah's commitment to "build integrity as a personal and national trait, a centerpiece of his administration's policies since coming to power in 2003", one has to wonder where the Jakim's, Syariah Court's and High Court's decisions stand on this issue of national integrity.

How can the Malaysian government tolerate its agencies when they deny the Malaysian constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and its practice amongst all Malaysians, and be allowed to act in ways that deny the constitutional right and rule of civil law principle in Malaysia?

To me, what was most disturbing about the whole incident is for the judge of the High Court to "ignore constitutional governance principles and rule of law," in explicitly ignoring the right of remedy for the wife of the deceased and the family's basic and fundamental right of the fatherhood of the family.

If the family institution is a fully recognised and credible institution of governance in Malaysia (by virtue of a minister being appointed for this jurisdiction), it is tragically ignosis (or ignorant) for the judicial system to blatantly disregard the rights of the family and a claim to their own father!

Please bear with me as a writer, when I claim, that when fatherhood is destroyed in such ways in this world and divorced from its pure and pristine value as found in all traditional religions, the foundations of society are being fundamentally destroyed. To me, it matters little that, it is being done in the name of religion. The destruction is the same. Civilisational collapse is what will follow.

Source: malaysiakini.com