DO MALAYSIA REALLY HAVE THE RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO RELIGION?
Malaysia is a country with Islam being its official religion. However, religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and others can be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation (as stated in Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution). Article 11 explains freedom of religion. Article 11 (1) states that every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it. However it must be noted that this right and freedom is also subjected to federal law, mainly involving matters pertaining to the religion of Islam (as stated in Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution).
In the case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor, the court dismissed the application of Lina Joy (given name Azlina bte Jailani) to change her name as she intends to marry a Christian and embrace Christianity, because the court did not receive an order from the Syariah court. The court held that her rights to religion (as stated in Article 11(1)) must not be read in isolation as it must be construed harmoniously with other relevant provisions on Islam (namely Articles 3(1), 12(2), 74(2), 121(1A) and 160 – where a Malay is defined as a person who professes the religion of Islam). Since she was still a Muslim, Article 121(1A) provides that the finality of her decision to convert out of Islam was within the competency of the Syariah court. There was no inconsistency between Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution and Section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, which is directly designed for the purpose of implementing Syariah laws on the Muslim, and it is not in any way designed to curtail the freedom of religion under Article 11(1). Therefore, this case illustrates that Lina Joy cannot officially convert out of Islam.
However, in the case of Re Suzie Teoh [1986] 2 MLJ 228 she was able to convert to Islam. During her time of her conversion she was only 17 years and 8 months old and his father ,Teoh Eng Huat took the Jabatan agama to court will the declaration of a father and guardian to the infant, he had a right her religion, education and upbringing and that her conversion to a Muslim was invalid. However, the court ruled stated that the infant has her right to choose her own belief if she does it on her own free will but she was no in court to testify. The Supreme Court then overruled the decision of the High Court. The court then decided that no infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than (her) own without the permission of the parent or guardian. However, the Supreme Court did not proceed with the declaration as Suzie Teoh had reached the age of majority by the period the case was heard in the Supreme Court.
In recent times, there was a controversy surrounding the public display of a cross outside of a church in a Muslim-majority area of Petaling Jaya. Fearing that the cross will cause confusion among the residents, a group of Muslim staged a protest. After further investigation, it was concluded that the church did have the rights to display the cross (Article 11 does provide the right to propagate religion), and that the group of Muslim should have been more respectful of other religions to avoid any seditious acts, and any racial and religious tensions. (Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/cross-protest-raises/1798166.html)
In conclusion, we do have rights and freedom to religion, but it must be exercised cautiously to avoid sensitive issues from happening. After all, Malaysia is a multicultural country, and laws are needed to monitor matters relating to religion.
In the case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor, the court dismissed the application of Lina Joy (given name Azlina bte Jailani) to change her name as she intends to marry a Christian and embrace Christianity, because the court did not receive an order from the Syariah court. The court held that her rights to religion (as stated in Article 11(1)) must not be read in isolation as it must be construed harmoniously with other relevant provisions on Islam (namely Articles 3(1), 12(2), 74(2), 121(1A) and 160 – where a Malay is defined as a person who professes the religion of Islam). Since she was still a Muslim, Article 121(1A) provides that the finality of her decision to convert out of Islam was within the competency of the Syariah court. There was no inconsistency between Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution and Section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, which is directly designed for the purpose of implementing Syariah laws on the Muslim, and it is not in any way designed to curtail the freedom of religion under Article 11(1). Therefore, this case illustrates that Lina Joy cannot officially convert out of Islam.
However, in the case of Re Suzie Teoh [1986] 2 MLJ 228 she was able to convert to Islam. During her time of her conversion she was only 17 years and 8 months old and his father ,Teoh Eng Huat took the Jabatan agama to court will the declaration of a father and guardian to the infant, he had a right her religion, education and upbringing and that her conversion to a Muslim was invalid. However, the court ruled stated that the infant has her right to choose her own belief if she does it on her own free will but she was no in court to testify. The Supreme Court then overruled the decision of the High Court. The court then decided that no infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than (her) own without the permission of the parent or guardian. However, the Supreme Court did not proceed with the declaration as Suzie Teoh had reached the age of majority by the period the case was heard in the Supreme Court.
In recent times, there was a controversy surrounding the public display of a cross outside of a church in a Muslim-majority area of Petaling Jaya. Fearing that the cross will cause confusion among the residents, a group of Muslim staged a protest. After further investigation, it was concluded that the church did have the rights to display the cross (Article 11 does provide the right to propagate religion), and that the group of Muslim should have been more respectful of other religions to avoid any seditious acts, and any racial and religious tensions. (Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/cross-protest-raises/1798166.html)
In conclusion, we do have rights and freedom to religion, but it must be exercised cautiously to avoid sensitive issues from happening. After all, Malaysia is a multicultural country, and laws are needed to monitor matters relating to religion.
|
|